Although I agree that there is a lot of good in the Steiner system of educating, I found the Waldorf school my son went to for preschool was mysteriously secretive about what they were teaching, which I found bizarre. I did not feel welcome as a parent in the classroom. They required a particular way of doing things, for instance for my son-- no television, movies or computers, only natural fibers and nature images on clothing, no logo's on clothing larger than a thumbnail, etc. The administration was very secretive on their decisions and choices. I knew from research that Waldorf was based on spiritual principles which I was fine with, but it seemed to me the school was trying to hide that aspect from the parents. Again, strange. I once heard "Waldorf is a lifestyle choice". I actually think for some of the schools it is mildly closer to a cult with the dead Steiner the cult leader.
In the Waldorf system, (based on Rudolph Steiner's educational ideas ) they don't begin teaching reading until 7 year old, or when the "milk teeth" fall out and the adult teeth start to come in. We looked into the Waldorf system and I was concerned that my son wouldn't be reading early enough. Because I started to read at 3 to 4 years old I thought it was way too old to begin reading. I was certain my child would be an early reader and I was determined to make it happen.
So, despite reading daily to my son since he was 3 months old, despite purchasing the whole set of "Baby Can Read" DVD's and flash cards/book,with almost daily exposure from the time he was an infant to about 4 years old, despite reading books with flashing lights and accompanying musical CD's and audio features, despite going hi-tech with V-tech and Leap Frog books and toys meant to facilitate independent reading, despite talking up how exciting and awesome it is to be able to read stories and books, he has only really started to read recently. He is 7 and in first grade. What I've learned from this is a child is ready when they are ready, and not a moment before.
Math on the other hand, he took to and excelled at from a very young age, with absolutely no prodding from me at all. Go figure.
Why would a family of four pay $344 when they can pay $100 for gas and a fast food meal (all there really is along I 5). Plus, then a rental car? Who knows if they will even make car rental available close to the train station? That would actually require logic and foresight.
If they could offer family discount fares to entice families out of their cars, it could be a possible option. Families could be a big market judging from all the minivans in traffic on interstate 5.
"The California Department of Transportation's decision to save money by hiring a Chinese company that had never built a bridge to build major parts of the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was troubling to begin with. A major Sacramento Bee investigation pushes it from troubling to terrifying. The article, by Charles Piller, details how Caltrans management was determined to stick with Chinese contractor ZPMC even as Caltrans inspectors repeatedly caught the company making significant mistakes and failing on quality control measures:
Caltrans started out by hiring an inexperienced company labeled as "high risk" and given only a contingent pass by an expert to build parts of a major bridge in an earthquake-prone location. Then, when problems were found by Caltrans' own engineers, its managers said they weren't really problems and threw more money at the project, leading to cost and time overruns after having hired ZPMC because it would supposedly be cheap and fast. Caltrans is insisting that the bridge is safe despite what Piller describes as a "litany of problems" including "suspect foundation concrete, broken anchor rods and rust on the suspension span’s main cable." The problem is, it's not clear Bay Area commuters should believe that."
" We must not let the green movement stand in its way."
The author is following the pied piper of Monsanto right down the lane into the cemetery, which is where we will all find ourselves if we continue to eat the poisoned GMO's foods.
"While 88 percent of association scientists agreed it was safe to eat genetically modified foods, only 37 percent of the public did — a gap in perceptions of 51 points. (The gap on climate change was 37 points; on childhood vaccinations, 18 points.)"
Then the scientist can eat all the GMO foods themselves. People are not that stupid --jeez.
Do not support GMO foods! Buy organic - you are what you eat.
Have either of you ever tried homeopathy?
Rin - was it an open casket funeral? Just curious.
You know, there is a law I believe in California that says if you receive something by mail you did not order, you have the right to keep it, and not pay for it.
It's not just California, it's federal:
This does not explain tight inventory in the Bay Area. According to your chart, San Francisco and San Jose have the lowest number of underwater homeowners. At best, it seems a minimal impact-- so the question is still--why is there such low inventory in the Bay Area, especially on the lower end? People no longer need to move? Families don't need a bigger house? Seniors aren't moving out? I am perplexed by this phenomenon.
This is Patrick.net. This is not my dissertation. There is only so much effort I am willing to put into this. But I thank you for your advice. Dan8267 says
You should demand convincing, especially in this day where journalism is anyone with Internet access and a strong but unfounded opinion.
I put the article up for others to do what they will with it. They can believe it, disbelieve it, or dig further. I honestly don't care. I didn't write the article -- why would I spend an afternoon researching it? If you follow your logic, why have anyone write articles? What is the role of an author? This is why we read authored articles, not read raw data all day. I read an article to get the information the author researched. If I want more information, or I disbelieve it, then I have the option to further research the topic.
If there's nothing else you remember from this thread, remember that.
Translation: I'm too lazy to back up my claims,
I don't know what you spend your days doing, but from the number of posts, it seems like you have more time for this than me. I am occasional on this site because I have many other things to do. Don't you? If you want more information than what I've already given, please feel free to research it yourself. You seem to know much about how to research it, so I ask, who is the lazy one?
I can only speak for experience and say I have NEVER seen a case where a woman earned less than a man BECAUSE she was a woman.
So just because you've never personally experienced it, it is not true? In the face of statistics that show otherwise? Even though you quote the below? Contradictory.
So here you go: 5% discrimination.
Stop protesting like this 5% is actually 100%.
Who's making it 100%? We are talking Silicon Valley, not the whole U.S. And even in your best case scenario--5%-- why should men make even 5% more for doing the same job?
Men who hold Bachelor’s Degrees make 40 percent more than women with the same educational level.
Exactly how are you measuring that? Please show your work.
This is quoted from the article. Here is the article: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/12/3282881/silicon-valley-wage-gap/
The charts are from U.S. census bureau. If you need more info -- you are free to research it.
I lived in SV for a long time, albeit in larger companies and the reality I see is very different. I have to take classes every 2 years about how not to joke about sex, so as to not make anyone uncomfortable. It's a repressed world where no one makes any joke, where there no "nudie calendars", or anything else that is not STRICTLY professional.
So women are whining because they don't appreciate being objectified?
I have never seen a woman treated any differently than a man, including with regard to salaries.
"Men working in Silicon Valley with a graduate or professional degree earn 73 percent more than women in the industry with the same degrees, according to an analysis of Census Data from the 2014 Silicon Valley Index.
Men who hold Bachelor’s Degrees make 40 percent more than women with the same educational level. In fact, they make more than women at every level of educational attainment except for high school graduates, where women earn 1 percent more than men."
Of course she went down under the table cloth... IT was a millions of dollars deal after all.
If you read the article, you understand that the women did not want the gift under the table. The point is-- would that VP have done that to a male entrepreneur?
"SAN FRANCISCO — Silicon Valley. It's where the women, and the minorities, aren't.
Hit any tech event from South of Market to Santa Clara, and you see the same cast of characters. Scores of young white men in T-shirts and hoodies. A fair number of Asians and south Asians. A few Hispanics. Rarely blacks. And a smattering of women.
It's a funhouse mirror image of the American workforce, which is 47% female, 16% Hispanic, 12% black and 12% Asian, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Google released its diversity numbers Wednesday after it (and most other tech firms) have spent years without disclosing such figures.
Just 1% of its tech staff are black. Two percent are Hispanic. The one well-represented minority group is Asians, who make up 34% of the company's tech workers. Eighty-three percent of Google's tech workers internationally are male.For non-tech jobs, the number is 52%.
The numbers are especially astounding for California, where 38% of the population is Hispanic, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Asians make up 14% of the state..."
Odd, I can think of many who did (and were executed) and many who still do deserve it.
An eye for an eye...still going strong since old testament days.
We pay 5.70 for daily lunch. Most of it gets thrown away. Mostly inedible. And the lunch company writes on their website that savvy parents know better than to think organic foods are always better for your children than conventional. So patronizing.
First elected in 1998 to represent California’s then-9th Congressional District (now the 13th), the Democratic lawmaker has established a reputation for principled and independent stands, unafraid to take on the tough issues and speak her mind for her constituents, for a more just America, and for a safer world.
The Congresswoman has been a strong proponent of safe communities, affordable housing, the homeless, low income energy assistance, job training, making health care affordable and universal, just immigration policies, the establishment of a living wage, and protection of the right of women to make decisions about their reproductive health. She is a Senior Democratic Whip, former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and former co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.
Her accomplishments are many, including authoring or co-authoring every major piece of legislation dealing with global HIV/AIDS issues since she was elected to Congress. This includes legislation that created the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, and the position of Special Advisor for Orphans and Vulnerable Children. She has secured millions of dollars for HIV/AIDS prevention, education, treatment and care services in Alameda County.
She gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of both chambers of Congress to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in the wake of the horrific events of September 11th. As an early and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War, the Congresswoman repeatedly proposed legislation seeking early U.S. troop withdrawal. In 2007, she successfully blocked funds from being used to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Her 2008 amendment requiring that any U.S. agreement to defend Iraq be expressly authorized by Congress or be included in a Senate approved treaty was stripped from a defense bill under the threat of a veto by President Bush. In September of 2013, President Obama nominated Congresswoman Lee to be a Representative of the United States to the Sixty-eighth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, making her the first African American woman to hold that position.
Congresswoman Lee has been a leader in the bipartisan effort in Congress to end the ongoing genocide in Darfur, Sudan, including the passage of legislation she authored to allow divestment from companies doing business in the region.
What have you been doing since 1998?
I agree. I don't understand how until the last decade California was able to upkeep the roads, but now is not capable. What changed? Why do they have to have new taxes?
from the article:
"In many markets, the housing recovery has "largely been driven over the last two years by buyers who are not as constrained by incomes -- namely the institutional investors coming in and buying up properties as rentals, and international buyers coming in and buying, often with cash," Daren Blomquist, vice president at RealtyTrac and author of the report, said in an interview."
So, does this mean Logan's theory of the market not picking up again because of stagnant wages and low household formation moot? Will investors and foreigners keep the prices buoyed?
And another question: why is there such low inventory, if prices are going up?
Remove the "s" after http when posting the link, that usually works.
Thanks, but not working...
I can't seem to embed a youtube video -- only can give a link -- has that been disabled on this new format?
Brother, tell it like it is!
Instead of talking in vague generalities like "honor" and "respect", you need to think about the subject matter more thoroughly so you can build up a detailed mental model of how you want men and women to behave and why. Then you need to write a specific, not vague, illustration of this and justify it to the rest of us.
Remember, it is you who are asking everyone else to change their behavior to conform to your standards. That means you must be able to outline the specific rules you want us to follow and you have to justify those rules to all of us. We are free to reject your rules if we find your reasons compelling.
I am not asking anyone to conform to my standards. Not at all. I am another voice here. I also am not making up a detailed mental model of how others should behave. That is absurd. It comes down to this: Are you using the other person or not? Everyone can ask themselves that and come to their own conclusions.
Second, you are implying, intentionally or not, that men being sexually aroused or gratified -- which by the way doesn't happen at Hooters -- is degrading to women. Perhaps you should start by specifying exactly what constitutes denigration. I sincerely doubt that all women have the same opinion on this. Some women think that showing their faces in public is degrading.
Of course everyone is free to do whatever they feel they need to do. A man being sexually gratified in a consenting intimate relationship with another person is not degrading. And yes, the Hooters girls signed up for the job so you can argue they have consented to letting men enjoy their cleavage. I am talking about systemic wide exploitation in using a person's body and sexuality to sell anything, whether it is a beer at Hooters, calvin klein jeans or a ticket into a strip joint. It has more to do with in the marketplace the ends can justify the means. Dan8267 says
But who are you to judge those women as being morally inferior, stupid, or wreckless?
Where did I say that? Those are your words. I have no judgment on what a woman decides for herself. I am interested in the underlying dynamics that lead all persons to prostitute themselves.