lostand confused says

now enforceable by race only?

No. But if two white guys were waiting for a friend (or business contact), who might have asked that they meet there because he or she does want to get a coffee, you can be sure they wouldn't be booted out, just becasue they are waiting without buying something.

Hell, even FW knows this is right, but wants to turn it into us against them nonsense.

lostand confused says

CBOEtrader says

The real tragedy is that where these black men should have learned a life lesson in humility, they instead learned to be racially entitled SjW's

Bingo that is how you learn

I don't know. I think they probably thought it was because they were black, that the manager said they had to go in the first place (and called the police). And guess what ? They MAY have been right. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

I understand your point of view. In their shoes, I would buy something anyway, if I was meeting people. And if I were asked to leave for not buying something, I might think the manager is an asshole, but I wouldn't think it was because of race. But then I'm not black and don't know what that's like to get looked at differently a lot of the time. So I'm not going to judge those guys to the extent that you are.

Tenpoundbass says

Originally the New Deal policy was All Employees must make the same thing for a job regardless of the company.

Total horseshit, unless you're referring to union rules. Unions were a great thing for american workers. Funny how right wingers want to make America great again, but they forget that when ameriica was great, unions were much stronger.

The worker has less and less leverage all the time. And the typical anti public sector right winger seemingly wants the owners to take away even more leverage from workers.

THe idea of some kind of national health program like they have in England, or the VA is nice, but I agree with the OP. Medicare for all is a no brainer at this point. Medicare is already paying for most of the most expensive health care that occurs late in life anyway for the entire country. THe most efficient thing would be to bring the rest of health care in to the same system. And then find ways to lower costs.

Wrong. The rate that health care costs were going up decreased under Obamacare. (not including the cost to the govt, of increased medicaid etc. for low income folks).

Valid point though, that health care is a big part of our economy.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

that those who seek to display MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS!!! must continually press at the extreme margins to find something to bitch about. They also want pre-pubescent children to have the right to take hormones and get complicated, invasive elective surgeries

Interesting the degree to which all of these are wrapped together in one generalization. The bathroom issue is one that never should have blown up if it weren't for Sean Hannity and folks like yourself that think they can get the base all worked up about those freaky left wingers, over such a non issue, as giving those small number of trans folks a public restroom.

I don't like the promotion of transexuality and the truth is I'm probably transphobic, and it's not moral righteousness that makes me think they should have a restroom. It's the problem solver in me. That problem could have been solved much more quietly.

AS for people that want young children to take homones and consider changing genders ? THose are fucked up people that number about as many as actual trans folks, or probably less, way under 1%. If they happen to be democrats, that's sort of like someone that believes in genocide of all non whites happening to be republican. What kind of person would generalize those beliefs on to many republicans, many conservatives or many right wingers ?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

sneer at millions of underemployed rustbelters wishing them death by narcotics.

Btw, as we continue to consider whether the luddites are finally going to be right about concerns of technology eliminating jobs, there may have to be some big changes in our economic model to deal with it.

My point here being that something akin to increased socialism may be the solution. i.e. guaranteed income or jobs funded in ways that are not related to direct expected productivity or profits attributable to said jobs.

I don't buy the idea that nationalism and closing ourselves off from the world is a solution. The causes of the plight of those underemployed are many and the other side of the coin is billions of people being lifted up economically. (yes - not Americans ). Yes globalization. What if the solution ends up being government programs. I'm not saying that would be a good thing. It's just that I don't see corporations stepping in and solving it. They could be taxed on their robots, but then what if china isn't taxing their robots, being willing to let their people have a lower standard of living.

The questions are huge and plentiful.

What do you say we get all worked up emotionally and morally indignant about solutions that don't make any sense ? OR perhaps we could just act like we care deeply (moral righteousness) about people we don't give a fuck about, and just blame the problem on the other political party implying somehow that our savior or our party has solutions.

You read. Kindly show me the part about equal pay. I'll wait while the cricket chirp.

Who knows, maybe you can find some bs on an austrian economics website, or infowars.

anotheraccount says

yet most Democrats will not admit that Obama missed the opportunity to do something big in a positive way in healthcare

What's to admit ? Nobody denies there were many better solutions we could have had. The question is, if he had tried, would he have been able to get it thorough.

Obama himself said single payer would be better, but look how hard it was for him to get the Heritage foundation plan through. He made the decision that he wouldn't be able to get a plan through that changes the system that drastically. I guess it might be an open question as to whether it might have been better in the long run for him to have tried to make the drastic change and failed, than what he did get through.

Certainly anyone with a so called "preexisting condition" would be glad he went the route he did. Others might feel that we should have held out for either no change or a complete change all at once. And nothing in between.

FortWayne says

One lawyer set himself on fire out of hatred. Some Dems will go to any length to hate Trump, even if it means destroying America

This is a claim that was legitimately made about the way republicans obstructed Obama even when he was trying to implement republican policies.

Where as the claim made here ? Wtf ? The appointment of a secretary of state has very little to do with the Trump/kim jong un talks.

Everyone know that the north Korea talks are about politics on both sides. On the NK side is the chance to show what a big shat world leader kim jong un is and a chance to end sanctions and gain billions in aid.

On the U.S. side, Trump stands to make it appear Trump has postponed the problem once again as has been done countless times in the past.

WarrenTheApe says

they’d rather risk nuclear war

Funny. Trump has already risked nuclear war more than any leader in my life time, perhaps other than Kennedy. But I don't know that that can be put on Kennedy. Where as Trumps childish rants and threats could have led Kim to freak out and decide a preemtive strike was necessary. I'm not saying he almost caused a nuclear war, but even taking a 1% chance is off the charts irresponsible.

WarrenTheApe says

Is there any doubt left that Democrats value political theater over the well-being of the American people?

Yes. Lots and lots of doubt. Where do you get this ?

“Clinton’s supporters feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country … They also worried about the mental instability of the president-elect and the anger that he and his supporters brought the nation,” the book states.

If you just add "what they perceived to be" in front of "the metal instability," then this is a fairly accurate and factual representation. I think that's implied, but they should have said it, as they did say "feared" in the earlier sentence, making it obvious they were talking about the perception of Clinton supporters.

WarrenTheApe says

What do you mean that you sell medicare policies?

He must be talking about so called supplemental policies.

anotheraccount says

Your line of reasoning is the justification that happened much later after the law was passed closer to 2012 election

No. I was not happy at the time that he wasn't going for single payer, and OBama clearly explained, he would have liked to, but he didn't believe it could be done, and that it would be too "disruptive" or something to that effect. In other words there were too many interests, insurance, pharma lobbyinsts etc that would not allow it to occur. IT's either what he determined or what his advisors told him. So he didn't even try.

Remember the state of the economy too. Destroying the whole health insurance market was probably part of what the "disruptive" comment was about (or whatever the wording was.

anotheraccount says

unpaid for tax cuts, stupid legislation such as Medicare Part D giveaway to pharma

Don't forget wars put on the credit card - literally not funded.

CovfefeButDeadly says

“Unsubstantiated and unwarranted perception” seems to be most accurate

Most liberals I know, not the far lefty types either, a still concerned about Trumps stability and still don't get what the appeal is, beyond what is mostly a bunch of BS about bring jobs back, winning and so on.

LEt me know when we have an entire season where the arctic average is colder than usual. Then I'll let out a sigh of relief that just possibly the denialists are right.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Even if we could have one year where the graph looks like say 1994, I'd be happy. Click on different years.

Man that was a wierd spike back in February.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

https://mashable.com/2018/02/26/arctic-heat-wave-north-pole-february-sea-ice/#7kstncIQRkq3

By the way, they said that spike above freezing in february in the arctic, was to the warmest it's been there in 2000 years.

It was a different article that mentioned the 2000 years. But I guess that number get's thrown around in reference to general trends in the arctic, that is that that generally such warm temperatures there haven't been seen in 2000 years.

Nothing to worry about though. No biggie. In fact look ! It's cold out today ! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !

I would have expected no less.

Wow. New low.

lostand confused says

The evil democrats game is getting old-though they still have enough people believe their crap.

You mean like all the stupid scientists that come out of schools like, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Cal Tech, Oxford, Cambridge etc. ? Yes, the evil democrats have really pulled on over on those dumb ass "book larnin" folks. IF only those scientists were paying more attention to Brietbart and infowars.

What are these billions in taxes being spent on climate change ?

Are you talking about the money that will have to be spent in the future as a result of climate change being denied for too long ?

Tenpoundbass says

Bullshit, so stop funding trangender queer perversions, stop printing up Liberal filth to forcefeed our kids in school.

You Liberals Get NOTHING! There will be no more smut printed up at tax payers expense, while people piss and moan about how we'll go in debt if they cut taxes.

IT would be interesting to chart the progression of some forum members rants over the years.

Is it getting more extreme even now that they have their messiah in power ? Or is it me.

mell says

What's not ok is to postulate that the glaciers will have all melt within 5 years

Nobody did that. You might have heard someone suggest that it was was possible. Nobody really thought that the glaciers would probably be gone in five years, which is what postulating it would mean. It would mean taking it as fact that it was going to happen. (yes, I know Gore quoted someone saying glaciers could possibly be gone as soon as 2014), get's translated by the RW dimbulbs to be that Gore swears that all glaciers already have completely melted.)

I do take it as fact that warming is occurring and that policies should reflect that. Meanwhile Trump wants to bring coal back strong, and coal mining jobs (LOL), supposedly.

Clean coal !!

He's such a fucking liar.

THe kind of leader I would want would be investing in thorium nuclear reactors NOW ! But that's helping the future. LEt's not do that. I'm selfish, and I'll be dead in the future. Let's let some other assholes argue in the future about what could have been done. Fuck those people in the future.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Marcus, no opinion on that ludicrous math question?

Not much. It does look pretty stupid, but I think I know what it's trying to do. Not that I've ever taught Math at the 2nd grade level or whatever that is. For those of us that have number sense, you take for granted some skills, many of which wren't really taught. But can some of them be taught ? I don't know. , how would you break it down ?

Tell me, with respect to so called mental math, if I said to you "what's 66 plus 37" can you explain what goes on in your mind ?

There's no one way, but I'm guessing a lot of people would use the fact that 66 is 34 away from 100, and then since 37 = 34 plus 3, ... the answer is 103. I know others would probably break it down (again, if doing without pencil and paper) breaking it down in to two sub problems 30 plus 60 and 6 plus 7. But even with that, and if you aren't writing it down and "carrying the one" and even if you remember very well that 6 plus 7 is 13, aren't you going to use the fact 13 takes you three past 10, to come up with the answer 103?

I don't know. Again I've never been involved in helping 7 year olds with their number sense. I don't have children of my own, and I never worked with that age group.

There is an aspect of Math called number sense, that a lot of older students don't have, especially in the calculator age. If in the case that that quiz comes from, they spent a lot of time hearing and talking about practicing that way of thinking about some things that naturally happen in base ten "mental math" addition, then having some kind of little formative assessment checking to see if kids are getting it is not so unreasonable. But I'll admit that taken out of context, for some adults it's going to look more than a little stupid, especially if the adult are judgmental and incapable of considering that maybe in context this might have been reasonable a made a lot of sense.

Speaking for myself, I think that when I'm adding 7 plus 5, or 8 plus 5, or 8 plus 6, I'm using memory, but I think I'm also confirming (quickly and hardly even consciously) using a method like that implied in the exercise. Certainly when adding 28 + 5, I.m not even stopping a microsecond to think about 8 + 5, I'm just attributing 2 of the five to get to thirty and the other 3 to take me to 33. And so yeah, I'm someone with number sense that uses the methods being taught in that exercise, or quiz or whatever it is.

IT's kind of ironic.. That is the intelligence level of the type of adults that get triggered by those types of examples.

By the way, one other thought. A lot of exercises and quizzes given aren't affecting kids grades. Sometimes it's just practice and also feedback for the teacher I can pretty much guarantee you, that if a student was great at addition and unwilling to engage with that lesson, that it wouldn't affect the students Math grade. I'm guessing some students might have tuned in, and gotten something out of it, regardless of the opinion of the pissed off parent that copied/scanned (that example above) and perhaps feels indignant about their clueless child. Imagine if the parent was smart enough to trust the teacher and work with the teacher.

mell says

harass Joe Schmoe with an utterly unreliable mathematical model.

WOuld it be harrassing Jow Schmoe to ask him to click on various years on this site and consider what's happening ?

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

I'll assume that what many get out of that is, "Oh I see the Danes are in on the commie liberal conspiracy."

People talk about "alarmists." If anything, I believe that those who don't want you to be aware of the magnitude of the problem, are being very successful with their disinformation campaign.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Tell how to make 10 when given 8+5 is a bizarre question period

Except obviously it's part of some process they practiced.. We're talking young children here. So "making ten" must have been language they used in class referring to using part of 5 to add to 8 to get to 10. And then the other part would be added to ten to get 13. There probably is even another part, a next question (not shown) on that same sheet that builds on it, getting and answer of 13.

This makes a huge amount of sense, and is at the level of a 6 to 8 year old. But the description gets wordy. So they used language that out of context looks strange to you, instead of using 17 other words that would have been lost on kids this age.


I put a lot of time and thought in to explaining it to you above, in ways you must be able to understand. It's about learning basic patterns. The example I gave with 66 + 37 is using the same pattern. They are laying the foundation for that pattern. I would think that this is far enough from politics that you might open your mind a little. But apparently not.

Say you have to add 28 + 5, how do you do it ? Are you going to tell me that you don't "make 30" first, in you mind ? And then add 3 ?

If this wasn't following practice where the kids knew this language in context, then kids are going to say, "make 10 ?" "What do you mean ?" (as the kid from the paper more or less did). "I thought we were adding 8 + 5"

Who knows, maybe the bizzreness of the question is even intentional. I like it. Why should you need to memorize that 8 and 5 = 13 if you can learn to see it in you mind, the same way that most adults (and kids eventually) can see that 28 + 5 is 33. And it's learning a fundamental pattern, not just something that applies to 8 + 5.

Computer science folks here will tell you that "patterns" are a big deal.

WookieMan says

I get so confused why people always debate/argue over this topic.

IT's because of the wonderful divide and conquer strategy deployed by the oligarchy. All they have to do is get Sean Hannity, Brietbart etc., questioning whether anthropogenic climate change is real. And the whole my team against your team bullshit kicks in.

Of course the goal is protecting the interests of big oil and big coal. If everyone were in agreement, then some of the money that's currently spent on wars or black ops or god knows what, might be invested in transitioning on a massive scale over to safe nuclear power.

Meanwhile Trump wants to lower future car emission standards that were set in the Obama era just to say, "nyea nyea nyea nyea nyea."

Onvacation says

No. They renamed it climate change because the earth was not warming as predicted. Now even cold is considered global warming even though the earth is warming very little ang MIGHT be cooling.

I posted it twice already. Do you dare check it out. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php It shows every year in the arctic.

Of course warming the whole planet means warming the arctic which in turn means unusual currents and unusual weather patterns.

How much intelligence does it take to rank these in order of importance in reflecting real warming trends occuring or not

1) average temeratures at the poles over time

2) average surface ocean temperatures

3) local weather at specific times.

Onvacation says

MIGHT be cooling

Again. Give me one year like 1994 (click link), that I might delude myself too.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Onvacation says

So how big is the problem? When is Florida going under?

I guess if nobody can tell you exactly what's going to happen and when, then that means we know absolutely nothing, and that there is no problem. Right ?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Also, why is a standard a method?

Usually it's so students learn all, or at least many methods. Not that you even read this or try to comprehend it, but for example:

In the algebra standards, dealing with quadratics, students learn to solve quadratic equations by factoring (one method) by completing the square, another method, and using the quadratic formula, another method.

By the time the student is in calculus, in a situation where the student need to find the "roots" or "zeros" of a quadratic, the teacher could care less which method the student uses. Often it's factorable (easy) becasue the problem isn't about finding roots of a quadratic, that's just a subroutine in the middle of the problem.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Why add to subtract? Why not just subtract?


Which method is easier? The traditional method.

THe traditional method requires writng it down. Is the typical person really that bad at adding two 2 digit numbers without writing it down ?

Newsflash: If you're adding without writing it down, you're going to use a method like that in the video, even if the way it is written for the 7 year old is hard to follow. The point is to get kids trying it.

If you ask me to add 26 + 17 (say it comes up in the middle of some problem), I know that 26 + 14 = 40. So 26 + 17 = 43.

IT's not like they don't teach the traditional method. They do, and the teacher is free to drill them on that as much as they feel is appropriate. Most will do a lot of that.

But shouldn't a person be able to add 26 + 17 without writing anything down ? And very fucking easily for that matter ? Wtf ?

I think that part of the reason for teaching "mental math" now more than years ago, was that back then, students would just learn mental math eventually, becasue of doing enough arithmetic, it just happened naturally, and by necessity.

But these days, becasue of calculators, you will see high school kids going to the calculator to add 8 + 5. So how do you help students develop "number sense." Answer: You teach it and practice it. But the truth is you show students methods and practice things. But ultimately it comes down to what do students internalize. Ultimately the students internal understanding is something that they build for themselves. The teacher is a guide, saying, "try this." "Try this." But for a lot of procedural algorithmic math skills, just like anything else, a lot is going to depend on the students internalization which comes from practice, and how they view it.

It gets very different later when it's more about the conceptual, and problem solving. At that point the teacher's task gets more complicated, becasue curiosity, and a strong and persistent desire to "get it" are not easy to impart.It helps if the students are the types of kids that always enjoyed puzzles.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Some methods are wildly popular for a reason. Other methods are uncommon for a reason.

You never let me down. There's a reason you're a Trump supporter.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Do you have another explanation why the preferred Common Core method is used nowhere else at no time in history with 1st graders? Is it because of all the great experience teaching it, it was considered too easy to grasp?

Neither you nor I know exactly what a majority of first grade common core teachers are doing for Math with their students.

You really think some anti-common core video is giving you realistic information, and not the worst horror story from the most angry and clueless right wing parent out there ?

Give me a break. I'm over loaded with work, it's my busiest time. But if you want I could find for you a web site, designed for first grade teachers and you could spend an hour or two researching what really goes on. And then lets talk.

WookieMan says

A teachers job is hard enough without parental support and this just throws the entire early learning math years in the wood chipper in my opinion.

Too much propaganda out there and not enough real information.

Here you go. Get a taste of reality.

https://www.engageny.org/resource/grade-1-mathematics-module-1-topic

So much better, and more interesting than what I was doing in first and second grade math. Drills have their place, but it wasn't exercising that part of my brain nearly as well as this. Actually, the nuns did't do that bad of a job. Truth is I don't remember what we did in first grade. Some of it might have been similar but without the social part.

WookieMan says

Of course they'll try to teach it in the classroom, but I'm highly skeptical of anyone over 45 and teaching taking it that seriously.

You'd be surprised. I dissagree for several reasons.

1) Common core not as different as you think, it's just getting a lot of press. They were talking bout "the new math" when I was in school in the 60s, becasue they were trying to bring the ideas of sets into math, and not only doing computation.

2) teachers are always being asked to try new things, for decades now, it's some new breakthrough methodolgy they are supposed to implement, .to get kids working in groups, reflecting on what they're learning, explaining it to eachother and so on. Especially in the lower grades, where classes are still usually 25 or less in size, teachers are very used to trying new things.. There is a risk that older teachers are jaded, and think it's another flavor of the month methodology. But they go to training's and professional development, and then they combine it with the things they believe in. But yes, the texts and or worksheets parents see, might seem somewhat strange. So the parents have to work a little if they want to get involved in learning what their kids are doing. That's not so bad.

3) The idea that becasue a teacher is 50 they are too tired of teaching or too set in their ways to be passionate about teaching or to take their responsibilities seriously is not true. Especially at that young age level, if anything they've learned to take the best things from new models and methods and incorporate them in to what they do. Kids that age are like sponges. Very curious, and open to new things, making it fun to try strategies out with them. I envy teachers of young children sometimes, becasue working with older teens, is tough at times. They have a lot of other things on their minds, and sometimes don't bring that fresh curiosity to their learning the way young children do.

(although sure - some teachers aren't that great. And certainly some elementary teachers don't love math or teaching math. They shine with reading, or art or whatever . But those types of teachers have been messing up students math potential for decades. IF anything those teachers are the best argument FOR a somewhat scripted curriculum that's rigorous and more interesting. But yes, parent involvement then becomes critical.)

CBOEtrader says

Not only is our system the best on the planet, but it took us 10 thousand generations to get here.

What ? I agree that we have it great in so many ways. We haven't ruined it completely yet. But there are a lot of huge question and issues to resolve in the next few decades, while our polarized politics and virtually broken institutions (consider just 2 things: lobbyists and campaign financing) should have any sane person concerned, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum.

This (below) seems a quite reasonable thesis, and it isn't contradicting the idea that we all won the "birth lottery" being born in this country.

But, following the Western economic crisis of the 1970’s and the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, big business was able to again direct the economy as it did in the pre-war period; the difference is that this time, banking and finance have played an increasingly leading role. The anti-regulatory climate this yielded in the 1980’s and 1990’s facilitated the 2008 financial crisis, which has in turn activated right-wing, populist movements against democracy.

CBOEtrader says

This part is pure idiocy. No redeeming this level of stupid.

Not that surprising that it would trigger you.

What is it you question more ? That right wing populists (nationalists) have been winning elections ? OR that it was/is economics (declining real incomes) that is the catalyst ?