Just to wrap up both the Loudoun story and this week’s column, “The Democrats’ Education Lunacies Will Bring Back Trump,” I’ll be holding a Callin at 4:00 p.m. today. I know lots of people are pissed about the Apple/Android issue and all I can say is, I’m anxiously inquiring about the ETA on that. But if you can make it, please click here:
I understand that Matt Taibbi has three (!) little boys now…I bet public education’s “lunacies” has just gotten real personal for him. Good! Sic’em Matt! 😉
The second most environmentally damaging action you can do is to move a third world person to the first world, the US as recipient being the worst. But it’s known that the most environmentally damaging action is to have a child, especially in the first world. I realize that many women need to satisfy their maternal instincts and men need to satisfy whatever compels them. Yet, I look at Matt and many similar minded friends who have three or more children, who clearly are decent people, with a sincere concern for others, but all who know better. I then wonder if humanity is not self-terminating.
Not everyone believes in environmental doom. Those beliefs are indistinguishable from religion and humans have a long history making sacrifices to the weather gods.
Counter evidence or arguments to my point would be interesting. But your first statement is at best a logical fallacy and your second starts with an opinion and ends with an irrelevancy.
Your side made a number of concrete predictions that turned out to be wrong. No more snow on Kilimanjaro? No more glaciers in GNP? I have yet to see any true predictions that I can verify with my own eyes.
While agricultural yields keep rising and natural-disaster fatalities keep falling, anguished screams about climate Armageddon keep getting louder because some made-up-for-the-grant-money models predict that one day the beneficial trends will reverse. It's like the Second Coming. Here, buy your absolution tickets, I mean climate offsets. That is my evidence.
The long history of humans being religious about the weather is all kinds of relevant.
You are inferring my point is based solely upon anthropogenic climate change being large. It does not need that. Ask yourself: Is there an upper limit on the number of human beings that this planet can support? If so, what is that number? If you don't have a number, you can ask someone. Allow me to offer 1 to 2 billion, which was the world population around 1900 before the huge number of species extinctions that occurred in the 20th century, by one estimate occurring at a rate 1000 times higher than in the last 60 million years. So by that number the world population is already 4-8 times too large.
The upper limit of sustainable human population is an unknown function of multiple unknowns, including undiscovered natural resources, future technological development, human propensity for war, and unexplained climate dynamics. Anyone who claims to know within a factor of 2 is a total quack.
And your comment doesn’t matter whatsoever. If somebody wants to have kids, that is their business and none of yours. My wife and I had 4 Montana born & raised strong strapping good looking tall, horse 🐎 back riding & hunting fly-fishing upper income earning tax paying, extremely patriotic boys.
And each one did their part in protecting this country. Because my family are firm believers in mandatory military-service for at least, 1 hitch. = 1 “ minimum active duty enlistment period.” For the Army, it’s 4 years. Marine Corp, it’s 4 to 6 years.
Depending upon what position / job the man signs, and or signed up for. 1 of our boys followed directly, Directly in my footsteps. By being accepted into our one and only “Federal Maritime College.” Kings Point. The United States Merchant Marine Academy. Kings Point New York.
https://www.usmma.edu/ And, after graduating he went right to work for our Navy’s MSC. That stands for. Military Sealift Command. Like I did. And I made it a career. 35 years, 3 months. (Takes 3 months at “MSC LANT DIVISION” to process out for, retirement. Loads of paperwork to sign one’s signature on.
Estimated amount of times you will sign one’s signature? Over 130 times. Because once again, MSC is Dept of, OF THE NAVY. It would seriously behoove you to click on both links.
So you can truly educate yourself. And while your on the MSC Link, I highly recommend looking over the, MSC Page of the ships that are under the command of MSC.
My last ship that I was Captain of, the “USNS PFC Dewayne T. Williams (T-AK 3009)” Under the banner of, “Prepositioning (PM3)” on the link of
My 2nd oldest son, Randall is making a career out of working for, and with MSC. I retired as a “Relief-Captain.” https://www.msc.usff.navy.mil/
Most, but not all Navy jobs are available for four-year enlistees, but some special programs (such as Nuclear Field) require a five year enlistment. These special programs usually offer increased training opportunities, and accelerated promotion.kör
Trump never left. He is a metastasized cancer and will outlast his own lifespan. And the Dems never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The biggest issue that I see with the Democratic party and its base is that they don't realize how serious the culture war insanity is to the right wing. The right views it as society ending and life threatening, and the left seems to think its a joke. Are we really laughing though? The left has to shut up about anything but bread and butter because the brand is too toxic for anything else right now.
Or, how about this, the Democrats actually walk their talk? This Charlie Brown walked away from the faux football snap after Obama.. They have not delivered or lived up to any of their “heartfelt” promises in decades…and they keep banking on the blind loyalty of their SJWs to proudly carry that disingenuous banner. In their relish to degrade the Deplorables, they missed their opportunity to show compassion to Middle America. Sad.
I find the left to basically be all or nothing. Obama care wasn't perfect, but tens of millions of people have healthcare that could not before. That included people in my family who now have have healthcare for chronic illness they could not access in the past.But it wasn't single payer so it was all crap right? And I reject the idea that every ill in society is somehow related to democrats. You have one political party that has 0 ideas and 0 interest in governance outside of tax cuts for themselves and their friends. Nothing else. We hold them to 0 account? It's all the democrats fault? Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is not a monolith but a cobbled together loose coalition. That makes it a lot more difficult to reach consensus. But to blame everything on one side when the other side brings nothing to the table? That's pretty disingenuous. And I also believe that there are bigger issues in the Midwest than hurt feelings about being called deplorable. 40 years of Reaganomics, shifts in manufacturing to overseas plants killing lots of little towns, etc. But that wasn't the democrats alone either. Globalism was going to happen either way.. That's the way the world was moving. I think offering people healthcare is showing compassion. I think insuring people have food benefits and heating assistance is showing compassion. The democrats have a lot of problems but let's lay blame fairly.
I am a democratic voter and not a SJW. I don't think that's too uncommon of a position to be in. There is also the factor that the right wing, having no ideas, only deals in grievance.
You misinterpreted most of my post, so I won’t correct it all. There’s a lot of gray and you seem to assigning black and white. I’m now an Independent and have vote all over the place for decades. I agree with everything you say about Republicans, except that two thirds of Democrats also vote in favor of their self serving programs. I never did it was all Democrats fault, I Implied they’re hypocrites which they are. Obama lost me when he had all the Insurance Co execs to the WH and assured them that their Profit making Fifedoms would be left alone..making the alleged ACA not A at all. Self insured until I turned 65, my premiums for a costly silver plan topped out at $1385/month.. healthy, not overweight, one BP med… and for mammogram, colonoscopy etc I had a $2500 deductible. The DNC imo has a huge imaging problem… throw in some of these other truth bombs Matt has covered , it’s hard to remain in the Party. Like the Fossil Republicans, there are so many career Dems that come off as entitled and out of touch. I want them all gone but don’t know how that happens with the in place machinery. Harry Reid died today. There’s a start. Admitting that speaking with protection from Senate Well he made up the story about Romney not paying taxes … with the post script “ it worked didn’t it?” We need less of that.
I apologize for misinterpreting. Didn't read a lot of Gray in your initial comment. I will be more specific. When referring to ACA I was talking more about medicaid expansion. My mother made less than 24K per year as a service worker her entire life and had multiple healthcare issues but could not qualify for medical assistance. Free clinics unfortunately don't do MR I's and so we found out about her cancer when she was already too far gone. medicaid expansion has saved a lot of lives. I don't disagree that the democrats way too corporate but the structure of our politics enables that. And we all allow it. 80 million people didn't even vote that were eligible⁰. The level of citizen disengagement, which is by design, allows a lot of the criminality. But my initial comment about the culture wars remains a factor. This isn't a left is evil to the right issue because both sides hate each other. The democrats are not the party that markets grievance as a winning election strategy. I'm much less concerned about student loan cancelation than I am about a psycho blowing themselves up at the local QFC. I fear we are getting to a place of increased political violence. I certainly don't want to live in that world and don't think it's worth getting there over pronouns, fake white guilt, or abortion for that matter. The democrats have got to tone down the culture crap and talk more about what they actually have done for people. Which is more than I think you are giving them credit wise. any decent thing that has been done for the people in the last 40 years has been done by the democrats. It's a small list, but the lesser of evil is still less evil and I'll take less evil.
I don’t think they hate each other at all. I think they throw back vodkas at the end of the day heralding their success at keeping you and I disagreeing over who is worse or the lesser evil. That’s such a low bar, I refuse to accept it! We need to get corporate $ out of our government.I’m still waiting for a legal Eagle to explain to me why Roberts voted for Citizens United….and, I know a lot of republicans who are far more reasonable than you infer. All of them are willing to pay higher taxes, they’d just like to see some promised results and not a single one is an unhinged psycho. 😀
I wasn't referring to politicians. I was referring to the general population, and we do hate other it seems. Owning the libs? The deplorables? The demonrats? Over 60 percent of average Republicans believe that the election was stolen. No evidence? Who cares? I am sure there are reasonable Republicans, but they don't vote that way. They accept unreasonable too often. Tea Party? Freedom Caucaus? They go to government to tear it apart because they fundamentally disagree with the idea that the government has a responsibility to make the lives of citizens better. I agree 100 percent that there should be no money in politics, and ALL elections should be publicly funded. I would go further and eliminate the ability to boldly lie as a politician. Death panels for instance? Stolen election? Eating babies? Say what you want, I don't see the left falling for the same sorts of bs. Q?
I will continue to pick the best of the available choices. And that is usually not a Republican because they offer no ideas nationally. Locally, I have as recently as last November, voted for a Republican. Because they had an approach to our housing concerns that I liked better. Hyperbole is less interesting to me than policy from the people asking for the privilege of being in office.
I would also love term limits. Three in the House and two in the Senate. We don't need career politicians. I would love to eliminate political parties all together. But here we are.
Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch, Democrats have never stopped worshipping the ground Obama walks on because he tossed you folk a teeny tiny healthcare bone while he was literally passing out extremely lucrative economic hand jobs to bankers & corporations & drone assassinating more bystanders than actual targets.
You folk spent 4 years uncritically swallowing every "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump is a Russian spy" or "Trump is the #1 cause of the heartbreak of psoriasis" canard that squirted out of the mouths of MSM faux journalists like shit out of diarrhea afflicted geese. Some of you still love that shit taste so much you happily show up with a spoon and a bib ready to chow down on some new Trump stank.
Then you brain addled wankers gleefully rehabilitated mass murderer, serial liar, wanna be combat pilot & mush mouthed dry drunk G. W. Bush just because the little daddy's boy said, "I don't like Trump."
Here's a neat little confrontation between an Iraq War vet & the Dems' new love muffin, George Wanker Bush.
Pay close attention to Bush's tone deaf response to this vets righteous anger. He said "Senator Kerry, you said you'd behave yourself." A perfect response from the guy who made a WMD Easter egg hunt video in the Oval Orifice while people were dying in droves in Iraq.
Also pay attention to what happened to the guy who literally laid his life on the line for his country. He was muzzled.
Please enlighten me about the Trump decision that led to the deaths of over a million people. I'd love to see it.
I didn't vote for Trump either time. Each election is essentially a choice between a bowl of corporate shit and a bowl of corporate vomit so I no longer partake. If that bugs you...who gives a fuck?
While I didn't vote for Trump I did laugh heartily when Hillary was handed the "you lost to the Tang colored reality guy" door prize & stood there all slack jawed, dumbfounded & dumbstruck. Comedy at its best.
I also didn't vote Trump the 2nd time but I did prefer a Trump victory primarily because every Trump fart & belch elicited 20 op-eds about how those belch/farts will bring apocalyptic ruination to us all.
As it stands now we have Joe "Never had a good idea in over 40 years in the Senate" Biden as president and a huge MSM that runs cover for the senile old bastard.
I don't really give 2 shits about either one of these corrupt parties. They've always been corrupt & self serving. They've essentially tag teamed us to the brink of ruin. What's missing is a news media that takes the pronouncements of the elite & their political quislings and pushes back on them to see if cracks appear and lies become visible.
Instead we have two teams of partisan hack journalists who do nothing but pucker up & kiss power's backside while disingenuously laying blame at the feet of the other party.
Someone once said that voters who vote strictly along partisan lines are intellectually & morally weak.
I completely agree with that statement.
Here's a name that the PC addled identity politics deranged minority rights loving Dems quickly flushed down their stanky little memory holes:
Tara Reade.
Is it really surprising that the Dems PC spouting propaganda wing CNN is manned by serial fondlers & kiddie diddlers?
In my opinion partisan Dem-wits spent 4 years twitching & gibbering under the thrall of Trump Derangement mass hysteria which then quickly shifted to Covid Derangement mass hysteria with the occasional TDS sprinkled in like a spice.
Personally wouldn't let a partisan voter of any stripe watch my cats let alone make decisions for me. You people are as much the problem as the politicians you genuflect in front of.
If this place does degenerate into violence it is a violence we've practically begged for because so many partisan dipshits still choose to play in this rigged game. Passively and gleefully supping on dingleberries while the powerful chortle heartily at our mass impotence.
Miss out on your coffee this morning? Pretty much every voter is a partisan voter. Since there's only two sides, most of us pick one or the other. Congratulations on being so evolved and so much better than the rest of us! And by the way, I would never watch your cats. I fucking hate cats. Maybe you should have two cups this morning.
Actually RayJay what I miss are our little chats. You constantly amaze me with your ability to see the keyboard while you keep your melon head firmly lodged in your own ass crack.
It's an amazing talent.
Maybe you should change the name of your vanity project to Rump Rat.
By the way RayJay I'm pretty sure that pussies don't like you very much either.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This is maybe the third thread I have ever commented on. So not only do I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about, but I don't give a flying fuck either. Whatever you are angry about this morning, I'm not willing to be your punching bag. I try not to waste my time with small minds or angry little men.
I'm late to the discussion but it's heartening to hear some acknowledgement on TK of value of the Dem policy efforts to help people and address their hardships. It's a topic that Matt seems to go out of his way to avoid -- have to say it gets to look like pandering to his subscriber base. I doubt it but I'm just lost sometimes by the one-sidedness of his dem bashing. Yes, he's doing a heroic job of spotlighting the distractions undermining Dem's ability to win elections and advance their agenda. I'm just not sure where he's taking that politically -- abandon the unruly dems and work for a third party? That'll be a generational project. The shit is hitting the fan here and now. Wicked storms, wild fires, 65 degree temps today in Alaska... We could be on the cusp of an unfolding and accelerating disaster whose consequences neither government or the private sector can deal with. Trump pulled out of the climate accord and began dismantling climate programs. A disturbing share of his party would do the same or worse if in power. More acknowledgement of the stakes would be helpful TK.
But haven't we been on that "cusp" as you call it for the last 20 to 30 years? Coastal, flooding caused allegedly by "climate change", or its original name "global warming" was supposed to put Manhattan, Miami Beach, and a whole lot of points in between, and beyond, under water. It didn't happen. Germany substantially shut down its prolific coal production, as well as, its nuclear capacity (yesterday announcing the closing of 3 of its 6 remaing plants. It simply imported its (admittedly cleaner) energy from Russia - meanwhile China and India each construct the equivalent of one coal-powered plant per day. So Mr. Biden wants the US to amp wind and solar from its 8% of our energy needs to 100% by Government Fiat (aslo known as "carrot and stick" incentives and disincentives. I am sorry if I don't think that "cusp" of yours justifies tearing down a multi-hundreds of trillion dollars in petro-based infrastructure. It is not at all incorrect to label that effort as Fucking Crazy! There, that says it all!
You make some decent points I will grant you, but the reason the Republicans are not exactly "front and center" on bringing forth legislation to fix what some perceive as problems has to do with the nature of Republican principles (and conservative ideology. Like the physians motto: first of all do no harm! The Democrats rush to convert 10-12 trillion dollars in the existing fossil based energy grid, when wind and soar are at 8% of this total, is insanity. (Look at Germany's EnergyWind program. You are championing a great historical party that wants to spend $3.5 trillion dollars to support the only leg of the stool that supports your party: black American voters. The party desperately needs to produce for them - and I am not disparaging that "in principle", but, as with so many of the party's initiatives (born, I will concede, of a desire to do objectively "good things", they fail to restrain excessive zeal, confidence in government, and end up promoting extreme policies that create mischief in the society, the market place, the voting booth...truly the list goes on. They could never, for example, set up a robust single -payer health system providing solid basic health care, catastrophic coverage, and reasonable prescription coverage: all eminently doable. Why? Easy. They would in the first breath (given an opportunity) provide abortion of demand services, gender reasignment surgery, unlimited mental health care, 28-day drug programs (which have low success at best), and a host of other "side projects" - for want of a better term. Having read and reread your thoughtful, reasonable, and somewhat defensible comments (though comments without context or balance), I suspect that you will agree with much of what I have to say. I used to vote for Democrats, but not exclusively, and to this day, I can make a decent case for Democrats (as, I do, for instance, in their approach to the pandemic), and I can excoriate "my side" for its "fuck all" opposition to necessary government mandates, as I find my health and safety is a "public good" well deserving of mandatory protections. What I can't do is excuse a party from supporting the garbage that the left promotes about America, and its hatred of the country from its foundational institutions all the way to the present day. I abhor the dissembling of the party's support for CRT (or its functional equivalents) - indeed, they should own up to what all of the rest can see: they believe in it, they support it, and, if given an opportunity would shove this hateful drivel down our throats.
I think some-maybe lots- of people believe in the CRT nonsense. They tend to be on the younger side of the spectrum and are fickle voters anyway. What frustrates me is that defund the police or CRT is hung around the neck of every Democrat, whether we are far left or center of the road. We don't hang the same extremist views on every single Republican voter, although their tolerance for insane behavior goes much further than the left. We define the left by people making up a million genders or CRT. I have been voting since 1992 and that is not my agenda at all.The only thing I am championing is choosing the best of what options are in front of me. I am open to better ideas all of the time. A significant challenge the Democratic Party has that the Republican party usually doesn't is that we are never all on the same page. The inner party drama is absurd, and the factions that make up the voting popular populist of the Democratic Party often have lots of differences. We hold the Democratic Party to an entirely different standard as far as I can tell. I'm not saying there is not room for improvement because my God.But one side believes you should be able to vote and 1 side does not. 1 side is totally cool with autocracy and 1 side is not. That's my basement right now. That's where my bottom line is. I sometimes wonder if we will be a United States in 10 years. And I am terrified of that thought.
The brand is toxic because everything it stands for is toxic.
Why isn't the culture war insanity an issue to the left? Do the majority of democrats believe that equity is better than equality? Do they actually believe that the federal government is an agent of benevolence? Do they actually believe that the democrat party has done anything to benefit the majority or a significant minority of the people it has governed at any level - local, state, or federal?
The culture of censorship, mass surveillance, forced experiment drug taking, pandering to and wall street and silicon valley, a borderless "nation"... what cultural benefits have the dems proposed recently that will make life in the US better? Yeah, the left, imo, should shut up about just about everything they are thinking because no one (except those that would profit personally as a dividend for instituting their proposals, not as an intended beneficiary (they have rarely benefited from those programs).
Yes, I'm of the right, economically and pretty liberal socially - in that individuals should be free (but groups can F-off) - and I do not see a single benefit of anything the dems have proposed or done, recently. Help me out here, what am I missing?
Let me flip that back to you. I've already said that I support their willingness to govern, their willingness to offer programs that make lives better such as healthcare, I've stated a case. What exactly have the republicans done? What have they proposed that would make my life better? What did they stand for? Their last convention had a platform of supporting dear leader. That was it. One side wants to govern and the other side has abdicated all responsibility. I'm not going to defend the democrats when their governing partners don't even bother to try. When there is a reasonable alternative, then tell me all about it.
I'm not going to argue that the republican alternative is a pure example of benevolence, but it wasn't a dear leader wankfest, either. The right wants, simply and generally, to be freed of stupid regulations based on pseudo-science/wokeism/neoliberalism. That last one separates the dear leader followers from the mitch mcconnell/mittens pubs.
Trump deregulated the economy, imposed tariffs, pushed at CCP, made EU think about NATO, and did not start a foreign war. The economy exploded and more people were working than ever, blacks, hispanics, everyone shared in the boom.
Then the two-fold shitstorms of covid and blm gave the dems what they needed to regain (some fleeting) power, at the expense of thousands of businesses, entire communities, and the economy (althought obama set the course to ruin it in 2010 and biden is trying to nail the coffin).
You're a reasonable person, you can think that what the dems tell you matters, that they have done anything at all to benefit anyone but their leadership, but i don't buy it. Look at their cities, look at their states...most all in decline or have declined to shitholes. Look where people with the means to flee are fleeing from - dem states and cities.
To assert that the pubs have/were abdigating responsibility is simply false, imo. It is the dem AGs and Governors that have abdigated responsibilty. It is the dems who have sold out to/bought (ymmv) cancel culture and the instruments to do so. It is the dems that allow antifa and blm to run feral through their domains. It is the dems that sold out kids to teacher unions...
I'm a Bernie/Yang supporter, registered Green, and as a 65-year-old guy who believes in old fashioned principles like-people should be judged on who they are, not the color of their skin- the culture war is a big deal to me. I find myself faced with just as much blindness and craziness on the left as on the right. I won't vote Republican, I just won't vote
This isn't just bringing back Trump. This is single-handedly breaking the entire Democratic party's electoral map.
According to the most accurate polling before the VA election and the AP exit polls, Youngkin WON HISPANICS.
BY! DOUBLE! DIGITS!
I work in the business and if you told me a year ago that a Republican would win Hispanics in Virginia by 12 points or more, I'd say you were sharing a crackpipe with the alien love child of Karl Rove and Dick Morris.
Speaking bluntly about the numbers, the only reason Republicans don't win almost every major election - especially these days - is that minority groups (other than Cubans) vote Democrat at a disproportionate rate for reasons that are more about cultural inertia than policy.
If minorities start voting like whites - just AVERAGE, not hardcore right-wing Cuban levels - then that spells nationwide disaster for the Left.
One of the problems with CRT and other programs spewing from schools of ed is that they are designed to teach kids what to think. Unfortunately with this kind of schooling, kids are discouraged from learning to think.
It’s unfortunate that the biggest concern with the lunacy in our education system is the chance that it could bring back Trump rather than the affect it’s having on kids.
I not sure i.e., we have survived (I use that term lightly) over a century of an education system that's not changed much in the way it teaches children while "barely" and I do mean barely (Jan. 6th) survived Trump's four years IMHO.
Matt, thanks for doing this. However, I would ask that you consider the format for the Callin. I would like this to be more of an AMA with some back and forth rather than hearing your guests speak at length about their experiences and or opinion. Clearly, there are many knowledgeable folks that subscribe to your substak; however, I want to hear more from you than from them, no disrespect to those listeners. After all, this is your substack and again I want to ask questions and hear more from you. What do you think?
I also would like Matt and the callers to work on dialogue rather than monologues. The callers are passionate and excited to have a voice and have real life experience to impart. But information only becomes knowledge when it is debated. Callers should make a statement and then Matt can answer and then lob it back. But I would also limit the discussion to 5 minutes or so unless it is a rip roaring good dialogue. There were only 4 callers in one hour and I bet there were many more listeners who would have liked to chime in.
I like your idea and the more I thought about it yesterday, I think another approach he can take is to stratify callers by their subscription amount or contribution. In other words he could have a premium version where he invites only those folks that have contributed more to the substack and allow for a longer conversation like he had yesterday with each of those. But I still think an a.m. a session is better for most people even those that haven’t contributed that much where as you say you can just limit the amount of time to five minutes or so and allow more colors to participate.
I feel there is one thing I need to speak up about as a youth liberationist, Matt. I understand that standardized testing is favored by many in the Asian-American communities since it has proven itself as a way for their kids to break into good colleges in high numbers, and because it is something that is measurable. What, exactly, however, does it measure in terms of individual level of skill, and what does it fail to do the same with?
Please note that many, many students -- including myself, when I was a student -- do/did poorly at standardized tests. Those latter tests only measure *very specific* skills, specifically the ability to memorize information. They also favor test-taking ability in general, which is not something all students, or people, are good at. So, should individuals like myself have justifiably been left behind? As a published author who has skills that are eminently useful to society despite not in the same areas as students who excelled in standardized testing, were those types of measurable tests fair to kids like me? There is also a good amount of criticism that relying on standardized testing negatively affects how educators must teach, requiring them to "teach to the test" and favoring rote memorization rather than building upon other types of intelligence and skills that are suppressed for largely political reasons -- critical thinking skills, problem resolution, oratory skills, and creative ability. In fact, the rote memorization standard has been favored to the point where a social studies teacher I had in middle school had us waste our time memorizing the nicknames of every state in the U.S. and made that an important point in our tests. Should the fact that I had difficulty memorizing all those nicknames even after hours and hours reading them over and over again mean that I should have been denied entry into a good college?
Standardized, one-size-fits-all education and tests simply prepare us to be cogs in the corporate machine, and lets face it, too much of Asian culture is geared towards favoring this type of conformity-centric success. I am *not* trying to say that this does not result in such students ultimately gaining entry into well-paying jobs which gives them the best chance to rise into the ranks of the middle class, but let's ask ourselves: Would this be as favored in a system that was non-capitalist and thus not focused upon wage-earning and profit-making rather than doing our parts to meet the needs of everyone in society?
I am not saying that standardized testing is bereft of the merits you mentioned. I am simply saying it does not work for everyone, and when it comes to the topic of education, I see no discussion coming from any side -- including your own, Matt -- that alternate methods of education which measure the value of different types of skills is needed. Have you heard of the unschooling movement and the varied forms of education it offers students with different needs, skill sets, and preferences? I think this needs to enter the discussion in a big way, and education needs to stop being defined as a single type of "universal" public schooling method that all students are expected to excel in.
Now, for the record, I concur that all students should learn the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, and civics. If they are not doing that in the California system, then I agree that is the problem. However, not all students are going to be able to acquire *advanced* skills in any of the above, and as such, a good and flexible education system that focuses on identifying a student's strengths rather than expecting everyone to excel at the same things, at the same pace and penalizes them for any weaknesses and failure to follow the pace of the crowd is going to fail a multitude of students. That is not so much learning as it is competing with other students in a race to the top, and what does that remind us of, Matt?
I agree with you that students who are taking the same pre-algebra classes for years without moving on to calculus is a waste -- for students who show a good aptitude in math, that is. Those like myself, however, who frankly suck at math are not going to excel in calculus, or even geometry, if we are pushed into it no matter how many hours you keep them after school and force reams of homework and "extra" work down their throats and punishing them when they do not succeed by denying them the right to have a life outside of schooling, while simultaneously wasting their time and the time of the teachers and/or tutors who are trying to get blood out of a stone. These students would be better off, once learning the basics (which all of us can do), in focusing their efforts into the advanced levels of subjects they *do* excel at while letting the math teachers focus on advancing the students who excel at math into calculus et al. The education system should not be morphed into a system that mirrors the capitalist system we oppose: to force everyone to ruthlessly compete in a race to the top, favor some skill sets over others by giving greater rewards to some, and deliberately penalizing and demoralizing those who fail to "make the grade." Some students will excel at some subjects better than others, and learning needs to be a fun and relaxed place that respects students as individuals and offers challenges based on the individual ability of different students to succeed at them. This *does not* mean shirking education in the basics of everything -- as much as I suck at math, I did get B's, C's, C-minuses in general math, pre-algebra, and even standard high school algebra. It was when I was expected to move beyond despite my clear lack of individual ability to handle the more advanced material in that area of academic endeavor that I found my time wasted and my life negatively effected.
Now, this is where input from youth liberationists is most important: the ongoing wars between who should decide what is best for students, parents or bureaucrats? Well, how about letting *students* weigh in on that? Not only as a group, but as individuals. Yes, I know, Matt, that parents love their kids more than anyone, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to make the best decisions for them. Parents are human, and thus vulnerable to all sorts of political and social influences that may result in them making decisions that is best for *the parents themselves* and not for their kids. I know you are a parent yourself, Matt, so I ask you to resist being offended by this statement and instead take a hard, critical look at what I'm trying to say here: the fact that parents love their kids so much may also make it impossible for them to be completely objective at times, and to assess their children fairly. There will be times kids need not only their own voices to be heard and *counted*, but also for there to be administrative boards, comprised of people of all vocations and ages -- teachers, parents, kids, students, etc. -- who are capable of providing an objective assessment that is *not* unduly influenced by emotion. Let's be honest here, Matt -- love, like all emotions, can have its dark side, including the desire to control those we love while arguing that it has the best intentions behind it. Even if the best of intentions are truly there, that does not mean the end result will be best for those involved. We also need to recognize the unpleasant fact that love and respect do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.
This was another serious problem I had: the family who raised me certainly loved me a lot, but they had *zero* respect for me as a person, and what my capabilities were. They simply wanted, more than anything else, for me to be able to *conform* as much as any other kid, including within the standardized education system. They didn't want me to learn the way that was best for me, they simply wanted me to get good grades within the established system, and when I proved unable to "fit in," they worked *with* the teachers and school officials to punish me for it, hoping that would get me to improve. Try to take a guess how effective that proved to be, and what it did to my emotional health. I was considered to be learning disabled by the system. Was it truly a "disorder" on my part, or the result of my being forced to participate in a one-size-fits-all system that cannot work for a large number of students? And does this system truly educate us in the all the ways it should? As undeniably important as reading, writing, and arithmetic are, whether in their basic or advanced forms, is this all really there is to learning?
Does this mean I am arguing that the state should be the "winner" in these disputes? No, because I fully agree that bureaucrats are under a huge amount of political influences that likewise intrude upon objective assessment. This is why we need local boards filled with students in addition to adults of every stripe. We also need the inherent competency of young people to be respected and acknowledged and to cease denying them access to information that can help them grow and develop at their own pace. This, I think, would enable parents, educators, and students alike to assess matters not only for education as a whole, but for recognizing that the realm of education to take multiple possible forms to meet both collective and individual needs.
Your grades measure your competence and your board scores measure your IQ, and yes IQ matters. The reason there is push back against board scores is that it effectively does what it intends to do, overwhelmingly well. In fact, sat scores are a better predictor of college success than grades, whatever college people go to.
Grades measure your ability to memorize information and test taking skills, because that is what the standardized education system focuses on. That hardly determines overall competence outside a scenario requiring these specific skills. SAT scores force many students to deal with subjects their college major may not focus upon. That is why, like many students, my SAT scores were just average but I graduated from my college cum lauda. Hence, the SATs were hardly a signifier of my success in college, or of many students like me. What I have noticed is that the main group of people supporting the continuation of standardized testing are those whose innate skill set is individually suited for it. This again suggests that a level playing field requires multiple educational approaches and methods available besides the current schooling system, and that grading and standardized testing are not good for accurately or fairly measuring all types of intelligence or skill sets. We need a multifaceted system that seeks to push all skill sets towards success, not one that only focuses on a few specific talents and "weeds out" the rest as disposable "failures."
Classroom grades should not measure memorization skills, if you have a good curriculum. Having a good memory (I don't) helps of course, but being able to process information, to evaluate choices and data rationally and logically is what should be measured. But to an extent, when I was in public school you are correct there...but again, that's a function of the curriculum sucking (I was in one of the best PS's in MD, which is well-regarded).
Of course SATs don't predict everyone's outcome, but for statistically significant research, they track very well with college outcomes. Don't forget also that doing great in college isn't an absolute predictor of career outcomes. But, again, statistical significance shows that those that do better in college do better in their careers. It's simply math.
I have two kids, one got great SATs/ACT and the other meh. I did slightly above average I think 1190. I did crappy in college until I didn't, took a while, but I am quite happy in my career that has absolutely nothing to do with my major, molecular bio. I see SATs as a tool, and I think you'll find the opposite of what you say is true, it is those that don't do well and their supporters who want to do away with them.
Really, I don't care what the colleges do, I just think it is clearly a poor choice to simply throw away a tool, a good one.
w/r/t what we need. That depends on your goal. If you want Princeton to look exactly like America from a racial standpoint, there are ways to do it. If you want to ensure that precious public dollars are not wasted on unprepared kids, there are ways to do that too. We have seen the results of putting kids into programs they don't belong in and they are disastrous, for the most part.
Is college as important as the general society makes it out to be, imo, not by a longshot. But as long as helicopter parents and helicopter wokesters clamor for prestige over a proper education, we'll be mired in these stupid debates where emotion trumps rational thought.
"Classroom grades should not measure memorization skills, if you have a good curriculum."
Agreed, though I would replace the word "good" with *flexible.* All students require the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, computer literacy, and civics, but beyond that it becomes more diverse.
"Of course SATs don't predict everyone's outcome, but for statistically significant research, they track very well with college outcomes."
As noted in my exchanges with Greg in this thread, they certainly didn't indicate mine. And I do not think I was a rare outlier here. That is because in college I got to *specialize*, and I did well in most of my core courses.
"I see SATs as a tool, and I think you'll find the opposite of what you say is true, it is those that don't do well and their supporters who want to do away with them."
Which is natural and understandable, because those who lack the test-taking, memorization, and math skills required by SATs are not going to do well with them, which provides a huge -- and unfair -- advantage to everyone who does have that particular skill set. Just as it's natural for those who do well with standardized tests wanting to keep them and why they defend them so strongly. And why, to be fair to everyone, I suggest multiple measurement and teaching methods be utilized, depending on the student. Personally, I want to see every student learn, and no one get "weeded out," as I noted to Greg.
"Really, I don't care what the colleges do, I just think it is clearly a poor choice to simply throw away a tool, a good one."
Not necessarily just throw it away. But simply recognize it is not a reliable way to measure certain types of intelligence, and should not be a requirement for all students.
"w/r/t what we need. That depends on your goal. If you want Princeton to look exactly like America from a racial standpoint, there are ways to do it. If you want to ensure that precious public dollars are not wasted on unprepared kids, there are ways to do that too. We have seen the results of putting kids into programs they don't belong in and they are disastrous, for the most part."
I think that is the very crux of my point.
"Is college as important as the general society makes it out to be, imo, not by a longshot. But as long as helicopter parents and helicopter wokesters clamor for prestige over a proper education, we'll be mired in these stupid debates where emotion trumps rational thought."
Fully agree. Especially when college is becoming prohibitively expensive, extremely selective over who gets scholarships, and dominated by curricula that is increasingly "woke."
First. Do we need testing? We do if we believe in a meritocracy. Dictators and bureaucrats do their best impede those that excel. That means we need to measure and separate students based on competence of skills. Second, writing a good test is difficult. Multiple choice is preferred and can be used to measure analytical thinking not just memorization. Yes, math can be very hard for those that are not inclined. As a math teacher for 15 years (Naval Flight Officer for 6 years and IBM specialist for 30) I can tell you writing skills for some is also very hard. Engineers spend half their time writing.
Both math and writing skills are needed for a number of jobs. Sometimes I think journalist should be a little better at math. One example is measuring the accountability of school systems. Today Detroit Public Schools gets funded $12,500 per student per year. With just a little math that should tell them that a classroom of 30 students means the school gets $375,000 per classroom. The teacher with benefits gets $75,000. The building is paid for. There are no taxes or insurance cost. Where does the remaining $300,000 per classroom per year go? By the way that average funding for students in New York is $20,000 per student per year. Multiply that number by 30, or even 20 for each classroom. Tell me, does education get enough money? Do we get enough student achievement for our money? That is why math is needed.
I will say that the requirement for four years of high school math in Michigan may be a little too much. I think students may be better served if economics or statistics can be used in place of per-calculus and advanced algebra.
Teaching to the test is needed sometimes. That is exactly what is done in the Navy for many of the skills especially flight school. Even the physical skills of flying are tested in that way. For less discrete skills like journalism there may be more room for judgement but there are still many things to be remembered. Some of those things, like multiple sources for a story, questioning skills, and the analysis skills of a student must be measured. I think many of those skills have been forgotten by too many journalists and that is one of the reasons I read TK.
"Do we need testing? We do if we believe in a meritocracy. Dictators and bureaucrats do their best impede those that excel. That means we need to measure and separate students based on competence of skills."
I would argue, Greg, that a capitalist system is not a meritocracy. We favor some skills over others based upon those which allow someone to become the best cog in the machine without questioning things. That works wonderfully for authoritarian dictators. Any good journalist would tell you that the last thing dictators want is truly great journalists with good critical thinking skills and an education system that allows for the production of numerous such individuals. They tend to be comparatively indifferent towards those with great math skills, since both egalitarian and authoritarian societies alike benefit from good engineers and scientists.
Secondly, everyone has skills that can benefit a truly egalitarian society. The fact that capitalism values some people based on how much money they make the owners of a business and devalue others based on having benefits for society that are less likely to make lots of money for capitalists does not indicate an overall lack of merit in that skill set.
"Second, writing a good test is difficult. Multiple choice is preferred and can be used to measure analytical thinking not just memorization."
In practice, multiple choice tends to work for those who have good rote memorization skills but not necessarily analytical skills. You can express good analytical skill with research and the written word, which is why some people are better at doing that than using equations or picking out answers on a piece of paper.
"Yes, math can be very hard for those that are not inclined. As a math teacher for 15 years (Naval Flight Officer for 6 years and IBM specialist for 30) I can tell you writing skills for some is also very hard. Engineers spend half their time writing."
Yes, which is why not everyone can do math well, and not everyone can write well. There are some who can do both relatively well, but that does not mean they necessarily have merits over those who can do one or the other only, since those who can do one well but not the other tend to heavily excel at the one thing that they do well. This is why you do not see many engineers go on to write books, either fiction or non-fiction, and not many authors who double as mathematicians. I personally know one doctor who writes great creative fiction, but I never met another who has. There are some doctors who write good non-fiction, but their style tends to be "dry" rather than accessible to the non-scholar. Some people are specialists, while others are a "jack of most trades" who can do many things, but not all of them in exemplary fashion as the specialists can. This is also why I have known many people who did well in the schooling system and were "straight A" students go on to work non-skilled blue collar jobs, and why my high school valedictorian go on to nothing more "exciting" or profitable than a sign language interpreter.
Does the fact that I lack math skills as well as writing skills mean that I'm of less merit to society that someone who has both skills? No, because those who are experts at multiple things are rare, the few who have both skills often do not have the ambition to go with their multiple skill sets, and because my lack of math skills has not hindered me compared to those with decent math skills because there is plenty of software available to figure out percentages without having to do them in my head. Further, I can hire an accountant to do my taxes for me.
Finally, as a socialist I am not seeking to establish a "meritocracy." I am seeking to establish a better society where everyone has value, everyone's skills at whatever level are used to the fullest, the rule of the system is cooperation rather than competition, and everyone benefits well on a material level from the bounty modern productive technology can create rather than some prospering while others are not given full access to this bounty despite their contribution to society because they are deemed of "less value."
"Both math and writing skills are needed for a number of jobs. Sometimes I think journalist should be a little better at math."
Not if you have that software I mentioned and hire those who are good at math to do your accounting for you, or to crunch numbers (i.e., a statistician). If Matt isn't good at math but has exemplary journalistic skills, does that mean he should be held back and get "less" for his hard working contributions to society than another who may have better math skills but is not breaking stories or doing the type of incisive writing Matt is doing? Should a published author who can do calculations in his head be receiving more access to the material wealth of society than me despite all my hard work, just because I use the digital calculator, the Excel software, and a hired accountant to do my business-related math instead of figuring it out in my head as I go along?
"One example is measuring the accountability of school systems. Today Detroit Public Schools gets funded $12,500 per student per year. With just a little math that should tell them that a classroom of 30 students means the school gets $375,000 per classroom. The teacher with benefits gets $75,000. The building is paid for. There are no taxes or insurance cost. Where does the remaining $300,000 per classroom per year go? By the way that average funding for students in New York is $20,000 per student per year. Multiply that number by 30, or even 20 for each classroom. Tell me, does education get enough money? Do we get enough student achievement for our money? That is why math is needed."
I think, Greg, that because you have exemplary math skills and you teach the subject has made you take my chosen example for critiquing the system a bit too personally. To clear that up, I want to say that I *do* value math heavily. I do agree it's very needed by society. What I was saying is that not everyone should be expected to have that skill, and get held back from success, achievement, or access to societally-produced wealth if they do not. This is why I value software producers, engineers, and scientists who have exemplary math skills. I do not think even a socialist society could function without such experts. I was simply saying that writing and creative skills with or without talent at math to go along with them are likewise valuable to society, and no one should get penalized, held back, or given less of a share of the vast collective wealth modern technology can produce for what they cannot do; instead, we all should be rewarded for what we *can* do well. Further, not everyone lives up to their full potential, and some specialists make the most out of what skill sets they do have. These things all need to be considered, which boils down to: everyone has value to society, no matter what skills they have or lack.
"I will say that the requirement for four years of high school math in Michigan may be a little too much. I think students may be better served if economics or statistics can be used in place of per-calculus and advanced algebra."
I do not disagree there. I also think, however, that students like myself, who lack good math skills but have high levels of skill at something else, should not be required to take any math beyond the basics. Trust me on this: the basics of math, coupled with the software available, is enough to get you through life in general, and naturally high math skills are not required to do certain jobs well. Of course, high math skills *are* required to do other types of jobs well, which is why I agree they should be valued. I just do not think we should have the type of "meritocracy" that values those with specific skills and devalues those who lack them, or expect everyone to be a jack of all trades. The schooling system as we know it does that, which is why I favor other forms of education to be established alongside it so that every person is given the opportunity to develop what skills they do have to their fullest, and to encourage them to use them to their fullest extent in making contributions to society.
It is if testing is more valued than actual learning, which rote memorization alone does not guarantee. There are multiple forms of teaching that enables students to acquire knowledge, and memorization skill is just one of them, and one that does not work for everyone.
"That is exactly what is done in the Navy for many of the skills especially flight school."
Which, frankly, may once again show why you have a bias in favor of this method of teaching, Greg. If this type of system worked for you, then I think it's fortuitous for you that you were taught within its framework. But that is more luck than actual merit, because if the system favored other types of skills over yours, then you may not have done nearly as well -- and I think that would have been just as unfair to you as the extant situation was to me. That is why I think we need multiple forms of educational methods for different students, which is designed to ensure that everyone has the capacity to learn according to their individual abilities and to develop their strengths in full. A one-size-fits-all system does not accomplish this, but instead becomes a system whose main purpose is to "weed out."
"For less discrete skills like journalism there may be more room for judgement but there are still many things to be remembered."
Which is where frequent research, frequent reading & re-reading, research skills in general, good note-taking habits, and search engine software comes into the picture. This is why a journalist who lacks good rote memorization skills can still be not just a good journalist, but a great journalist.
"Some of those things, like multiple sources for a story, questioning skills, and the analysis skills of a student must be measured."
Agreed, but they do not require standardized testing to do that. Sometimes, just looking at the end results of someone's work, along with a good amount of training, can determine that. As an editor, I can assess a fellow writer's level of skill by reading their work rather than giving them tests that require them to answer multiple choice questions. This is why I think the likes of Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and Jimmy Dore are great journalists despite never having given them a test or checked their academic records.
"I think many of those skills have been forgotten by too many journalists and that is one of the reasons I read TK."
And I think, based on personal experience, that Matt (as one example) may or may not have good memorization skills or good skill at math. If he lacks either, there are ways for a great journalist to compensate for that. We have no evidence that Matt does the math or sifts out information in his head without reading & re-reading, checking detailed notes he makes and refers to while writing an article, or gathering the stats from others who are competent number-crunchers. He may indeed do these things, but if he does, then I think he is a great journalist despite that fact, not because of it.
I will make an extra effort to do so in the future. I tried to divide them into sections as much as possible; I just didn't follow the strict 4 to 5 lines rule. But since you begged so firmly, I will make sure to do that in the future :-)
For what it's worth, Garland, I think I did that more or less in my subsequent posts in this thread. I apologize for failing to do so in the first post and made your reading experience less satisfying as a result.
It is just a matter of time before the Dems start losing women in droves with their "woke" trans religious beliefs that they call "science". Women are socialized to be very tolerant but the push to celebrate trans women and erase women is going to blow up in the face of those who worship at the transwoman alter.
A good companion piece to Matt's Loudoun series is this article by George Packer in the Atlantic that covered many of the same issues when they were introduced into New York Public schools.
"When the Culture War Comes for the Kids
Caught between a brutal meritocracy and a radical new progressivism, a parent tries to do right by his children while navigating New York City’s schools.
This was the article that taught me that kids were actually selling "N-Word Passes" to each other. Something that originally was just a joke on 4chan was taken seriously by kids and became part of a school culture crisis.
And then there are those of us old folks who mostly use their "smart" telephone mostly like their now obsolete rotary dial phones.
I personally prefer using a large screen powerful notebook computer, but then I spent much of my working life after leaving my newspaper reporter/editor job as a professional programmer and entrepreneur.
If it were not so silly, I'd lodge an elder abuse complaint with the State of Florida.
I think that basketball is inherently racist and should be "restructured" much in the same way math should be according to Deborah Lowenberg Ball by lowering the height of the basket and not keeping score similar to eliminating standardized testing in CA. It has been systematically developed to decrease the potential for whites to advance. As all people are created equal, both physically and mentally, it would stand to reason that had these equality driven standards been implemented when I was learning the game 40 years ago I, as a now overweight 55 y/o 6' white man, would have had a better potential to play in the NBA. I didn't do well with basketball because I am an average 6' white man and also didn't do well in math because I have an average brain not because I didn't try hard at both or had bad teachers or coaches. I'm not a Herbert Spencer social darwinist but do believe in aptitude. BTW I suck at drumming. Guess I should have try to learn it without using the heads or better yet, the sticks.
I agree, and believe Dr. Fauci would agree with you that "the known" comes from RCTs (double-blind trials). When something is not known for sure, such as mask efficacy, we must rely on observations from trusted sources, and even common sense as he says, which certainly can be wrong, but are the best we have until proved right or wrong.
While anyone could be corrupted by self-interest, I have no reason to distrust Dr. F. when it comes to his motives for his recommendations. An overly suspicious person might distrust another when a possible motive for dishonesty can be thought of, but I have found greater accuracy in saying "What does he have to lose by lying" (for Fauci, everything. For Trump, nearly nothing it seems).
By the way, as a primary care doctor who has followed Fauci since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, I have found him wrong on more than one issue. His stance on masks at the beginning of Covid turned out wrong, though understandable, since masks weren't known to be effective at the time, and a run on masks needed to be avoided so the hospitals wouldn't run out. Since then, observational studies-not RCTs but the best we have- have shown a substantial decrease in transmission. I believe we should go with that til disproved.
> "His stance on masks at the beginning of Covid turned out wrong, though understandable, since masks weren't known to be effective at the time, and a run on masks needed to be avoided so the hospitals wouldn't run out."
Dr. Fauci knew perfectly well, or should have, masks were effective. That's why they didn't want to run out of them. In fact, he has admitted he made a 'calculated' decision to 'lie' to the public, ostensibly in his view to avoid a run on masks for first responders and the larger good. I reject that argument out of hand.
I think the American public would have understood the precarious reality of the situation and, more importantly, would have made-do (scarfs, etc.) with the knowledge this virus was highly contangious. Instead, they were told a lie .. . and wonder why people lack confidence in our medical professions 'leadership'. *i do suspect it must have been difficult for Dr. Fauci to sort things out in the Trump 'UV light' Kung Flu environment.
Bottom line: despite being the 'richest' most powerful country in the world and, ironically, a center for biomedical research and advancement, the U.S. leads the world in Covid mortality.
This is nonsense. How about you show us "Democrats' Education" compared to "Republicans' Education". Probably not, because this is a media created pacifier for imbeciles to suck.
Hi Matt, Is there an easy way for you to turn these Callin discussions into transcripts? I like to listen to them, but sometimes there is something said that I would like to note, like your comment about propaganda techniques.
Let me reply to your second point first. "In practice, multiple choice tends to work for those who have good rote memorization skills but not necessarily analytical skills."
Here is a multiple-choice question that takes very little if any memorization skill and whole lot of analytical skills. The question goes like this.
"There are three boxes, A,B,and C of which only one has anything of value in it. Assume you pick box A as your best guess. Before revealing whether you are right or not I, knowing which box contains the something of value, truthfully told you box B does not have anything of value. Which of the following answers would provide the best chance of finding the thing of value?
a. Stay with box A
b. Change to box C
c. Box A and C have the same odds of being right.
Regarding your first premise. Please tell me which socialistic country attracts innovators like Elon Musk or anyone like him. It is hard to refute the fact that he is the product of a meritocracy that is embraced and rewarded by a capitalist system not a socialist one. His genius is how to take his engineering skills and turn it into something that benefits society. His reward is making more money to do the same again and again as long as he works hard and continues to produce USABLE products that society values. The same can be said of Edison and others. Edison had created hundreds of trillions of dollars of value to the human race of which he, even at a billion dollars was only rewarded with a small portion of the wealth he created.
All citizens of this country are treated equally under the law. That doesn't mean that they all should be rewarded the same way. For the most part, in a capitalistic system they are rewarded by how much value they provide society. A good doctor provides more than most brick layers. Normally doctors are paid more than brick layers. They are both treated equally under the law but the law doesn't pay them for what they contribute to society.
"Here is a multiple-choice question that takes very little if any memorization skill and whole lot of analytical skills. The question goes like this.
"There are three boxes, A,B,and C of which only one has anything of value in it. Assume you pick box A as your best guess. Before revealing whether you are right or not I, knowing which box contains the something of value, truthfully told you box B does not have anything of value. Which of the following answers would provide the best chance of finding the thing of value?
a. Stay with box A
b. Change to box C
c. Box A and C have the same odds of being right. "
But here's the thing. This multiple choice question is not something to be found in a social studies or literature test, but is actually logic. Logic takes a high level of analytical skill, but its heavy use of numbers and variables makes it, as far as I and many others are concerned, a form of *math.* This is why you are partial to it, because it encompasses doing *math* in your head and being good at it -- which you are, and that's great, as I'm sure you make a good engineer, pilot, and math teacher as a result. I, however, was terrible when I took a course in logic, because working through equations and mathematical concepts in my head is not something I am good at. However, there are other ways of testing one's analytical skills that do not require the use of numbers and equations, but those involved in writing, research, and oratory discussion.
As I pointed out before, math is great for those who are good at it, but not for those who are not. Diversity is the rule of human skill sets, much like most everything else. No one who lacks these particular skills should be "left behind" or considered incompetent, let alone incapable of making major contributions to society that go beyond simply making money for either one's self or some big heartless corporation.
"Regarding your first premise. Please tell me which socialistic country attracts innovators like Elon Musk or anyone like him."
First off, there is no truly socialistic nation in the world as Marx and Engels formulated the term: a classless, moneyless, stateless and thus fully egalitarian society that expects contributions from everyone based on their specific abilities with full access to the social store in return. What you are referring to is either social democracy (i.e., liberal capitalism) or some variant of Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism (i.e., state-controlled autocracy).
Secondly, Musk is not attracted to America because it has the best scientists and engineers. He is attracted to it because it has the greatest potential to make *money* for him and to ensure that capitalist control of industries makes it to Mars and thus, the first human Martian colonies. And that is because American corporations exploit their workers more efficiently than any other nation. That is more about profit and practicality than superior innovation.
"It is hard to refute the fact that he is the product of a meritocracy that is embraced and rewarded by a capitalist system not a socialist one."
A "meritocracy" that lavishes a tiny percentage of people with vast access to the social wealth we collectively produce in a land of abundance while making it so that over 70% of hard workers have to struggle just to get by with wages that enables access to only a fraction of the value of what they produce (and could not handle even a $500.00 emergency), as well as consigning a large number of workers to being homeless and thereby wasting whatever skills sets they have is not a system of merit but an authoritarian plutocracy that lacks anything resembling compassion or equality. Musk has hundreds of employees working for him, and both he and they could have accomplished the same innovations in a genuinely socialist nation. However, in that case it would have been seen as a cooperative venture that was not dependent on money or the requirement of making a profit, but to enable all of humanity to benefit -- just as Musk and his employees benefit from the hard work people with other talent sets do in terms of providing food, medicine, infrastructure, entertainment, et al, for them.
"is genius is how to take his engineering skills and turn it into something that benefits society."
If you have the money to afford it, yes. But how many of us can currently afford his shuttle trips as a replacement for airplanes? Only a small fraction of the population can currently benefit from his innovations. Would Jeff Bezos have taken non-celebrities who lacked money and were not part of his elite social circus into space as he recently did William Shatner? Keep in mind that Bezos has nothing like Musk's engineering skills, but he had the money to hire those who do, to the point where he is now providing business competition for Musk and NASA. Musk making it "to the top" may have been more a result of his money and a lot of luck rather than superior brains and education.
If we had a classless and moneyless society, *all* of the world would be benefiting from the innovations stemming from those who work for Musk and Bezos (and NASA). Further, none of them would have had to worry about being "left behind" or "weeded out" of an education system that is every bit as callously competitive as the corporations it serves because there wasn't enough money in their hands, or because they could not pass a certain course in college that had nothing to do with engineering, or because they simply had their discoveries stolen from them because the corporation they worked for owned everything they created.
"His reward is making more money to do the same again and again as long as he works hard and continues to produce USABLE products that society values."
Except that all of his endeavors can only be about making a profit first and foremost, and the potential benefits of his company's innovations are limited to those who can pay, not everyone who would benefit. If he had lived in a socialist society, every engineer would have ample access to the resources requiring such innovations, and their reward would be the same as everyone else's who makes important contributions to society in every field: full access to the social store. They would not be demanding *power and privilege* over others, and would not expect more than economic security and having their full material needs and reasonable wants met. Moreover, if I had billions of dollars due to being born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I could create a rival company to Musk despite lacking his skills as an engineer by hiring engineers. I would then be raking in the profits from their work and designs, surely as both Musk (despite his skills) and Bezos are doing.
"The same can be said of Edison and others. Edison had created hundreds of trillions of dollars of value to the human race of which he, even at a billion dollars was only rewarded with a small portion of the wealth he created."
I'm glad that Edison had the skills he had. I am not sorry that he failed to acquire power and privilege over others as his "reward." I am sorry that he did not receive the full fruit of his labor, just like everyone else whose collective work helped support his life and work. Which includes us writers whose publications have served as the conscience of societies, and whose speculative fiction has inspired scientists and engineers to reach beyond the currently known and possible. I respect all talents and abilities, and feel each one should be rewarded for their work -- but not to vastly lesser or greater degrees of anyone else who contributes, regardless of how much a plutocracy "values" them.
"All citizens of this country are treated equally under the law."
That was the intention of the Founders, but that's not how it works in practice, Greg. If we had some type of legal squabble, those of us who could afford the best lawyers would have the advantage, especially if that one routinely walked in social circles where they were personal friends with judges and high-priced attorneys. That is also why the President and senators can routinely get away with crimes that would have you and me thrown into the slammer for life. The type of "meritocracy" you describe is about winners and losers, and producing a few winners that require millions of losers.
"That doesn't mean that they all should be rewarded the same way. For the most part, in a capitalistic system they are rewarded by how much value they provide society."
I think people who write inspiring books, brick layers who help in constructing the facilities we need, and who make and distribute food (to name but a few) make as big a contribution in their own way as doctors and scientists, who could not do their work without the latter people. No one actually needs or deserves more than the full fruit of their labor. In a system that runs on money -- which makes no sense in an industrially advanced world that can mass produce virtually everything we collectively need-- then those with the most of it will call the shots and literally write the laws that govern society, since their lobbyists would have most politicians beholden to them.
"They are both treated equally under the law but the law doesn't pay them for what they contribute to society."
Note what I said above. If you have a lot more money than someone else, the law is most definitely in your favor. That includes those who are the progeny of wealthy capitalists and "trust fund babies." That is why Hunter Biden, Trump's children, and Chelsea Clinton will have far more privilege and "merit" in the eyes of society than you and I, the billions of others in the world like us, no matter how hard we work and what we contribute compared to them.
The question only requires elementary school math. Like one out three is 1/3 and 2 out of three is 2/3. The hard part is logic. I did the question to illustrate that multiple choice questions can demand much more than memorization. By the way the correct answer to the question is b. Change to box C. Box C has a two out of three (2/.3) chance of being right.
Thankfully, most of us can handle elementary school math, i.e., general math, but those of us who lack natural skill at it have to work much harder to learn it than those born with a natural talent for math and mathematical thinking. The cut-off point will likely vary somewhat for those of us (like me) who suck at math; but in my case, I noticed that high school geometry was the point of no return, i.e., where I could not progress or learn any of it no matter how many hours I was kept after school, how many extra assignments I was expected to complete, how many tutors I had foisted onto me, or how severely I was punished by teachers and family alike for not learning it or getting the homework completed (and I was hit with plenty of each!). One very important thing required for such students are math teachers who have the combined traits of being very good at *teaching* (an art not all mathematicians are proficient at), very patient, and willing to honestly assess when a student is simply not talented enough at the topic to go any further (to her credit, my geometry teacher did at one point tell my mother that she felt bad for me, because I was obviously really trying despite not being able to grasp it). This means that not all math teachers (or teachers of *any* subject, for the same reasons) are suitable for all students who are taking on the topic. For instance, a teacher whose personal style of teaching and overall personality may be terrific for students who are good at math, but terrible for students who lack the natural talent to excel at the subject.
When I worked at my college as a writing and English tutor, I tried to help the many Freshman English students I had by advising them which of the English instructors I knew to be tolerant of those who were just not going to progress in that particular subject beyond the basics (that is, reasonably competent at writing instead of good) as opposed to those who would be "hard asses" about it (and I knew each of them well, as I was an English major enrolled in all of their advanced, sometimes graduate-level classes). Likewise, to pass Statistics, the sole math class I was required to get through as part of my core college courses, I was advised by a few math majors I knew as to which instructors to avoid taking that class with, and which would give me a break provided I worked extremely hard to the point of sweating blood and tears.
I do see what you mean by saying that multiple choice questions can entail more than just rote memorization, but as noted, logic requires a special type of analytical thinking that not every brain can process. It's also a rather unique subject unto itself, much like word problems, which I did well at in my general math classes because it required writing mini-stories or scenarios rather than just using numbers. There are, of course, alternate means of analytical thinking that people who lack the specialized mental processing skills of those with innate talent at math can call upon.
Thank you also for the answers to the questions you presented, and for your polite engagement with me despite our disagreements. It's clear that you really enjoy what you do, which is wonderful, and again, I never meant to imply that your specific talent set is not useful to society. Quite the contrary! I was simply arguing that all skills sets and talents are useful, and the lack of certain innate abilities or not being a "jack of all trades" does not mean that a person is bereft of being tremendously useful to society for the talents they *do* possess, not to mention those who make the most out of what level of intelligence they do have as opposed to obviously smarter people who choose not to their potential for whatever reason. This is why different methods of education are required to meet the needs of different students.
I listened to yesterday's Callin and found it pretty well balanced.
Matt's reporting on the topic seemed very good, much more in-depth than I have heard.
If you don't have a ton of time to devote to exhaustively following this story, I would say his treatment of the issue is comprehensive and pretty fair-minded, even though the case for greater equity in public school education should still always be sought, (if not to the exclusion of high standards)and the notion of racism having infiltrated institutions is pretty undeniable (though reversals have clearly taken place since the 1960s).
I do wish to dispute one caller's charge than Dr. Fauci's reversals on various recommendations show his unreliability. Rather, it's the virus that is unreliable, and unpredictable. Like all scientists should do, he seems to have always based his recommendations on what is known at the time, or at least what could be most reasonably assumed based on prior science.
We must remember that science is the sum of information which has not yet been proved wrong.
The thing about Fauci and his definition of "what is known", is that for new medications or treatments his definition is statistical evidence from double blind human trials. But for other things, his evidence is e.g., "It's common sense more masks will work better than one mask", even though a survey of Random Controlled Trials (RCT) (which include double blind human trials, but some trials can't be blind such as for masks because the patient knows what treatment cohort he's in if he's wearing a mask) on public mask usage doesn't show they reduce virus transmission.
You might say Fauci's definition of "what is known" is to support government and Big Pharma.
Yeah, another subscriber feature on the app I can't use. You need to lower subscription price for we non-Apple suicide net supporting folks. You not addressing this bullshit pisses me off, yet I still subscribe. Kind of like how both Dems and Republicans expect their supporters to always vote for them no matter how bad their candidate is. See Dementia Joe for reference. I am sure you don't give a shit about low income subscribers like me, plus I am a horrible boomer. Egads.
I wouldn't use it even if I could .. . was sitting in the loo @ 4pm ESt concentrating on doing my own business, Virg.
What I want, and what I shall insist upon btw, is a rapid, fast=paced 'news' environment that can act in real time response to the HUGE-shit-load of crap I read everyday in the 'news'papers. I am anxiously concerned.
Don't need no 'special features' and, as mentioned above, I'm way too busy to call it in. Can't wait all day either on deep dives into the rich&famous lovers in Va. (although there is nothing wrong with that.). .. by the time Matt gets done/through examining this phenomenon, GOPYoungkin and Va. will have seceded from the Union.
All I need is a wifi connection and a little spot to voice my objections. .. or approval.
There is no such thing as an "extra feature." An app "in the works" does us no good at all. It shows arrogance on the part the person who offers such a limiting benefit and then does not respond to any criticism. I am sure he appreciates you running interference for him because he sure as hell won't do it for himself.
I heard the first 20-30 minutes, took a break. When it reloaded I was not able to get it to jump forward to the previous spot, it would only play from the beginning and I'm not willing to listen to the whole thing over again. I'm guessing this is an issue with the callin platform.
May I suggest you also put these out as a podcast, since those platforms will allow jumping around in the times. I usually listen on Podbean
Why do we have to listen to Paul whine on about San Francisco? I live here in the City & it's great! Fu*k Texas with its collapsing grid, no ACA, no abortions, & everyone is armed to the teeth.
Mr. Taibbi, as a Marine, I'm anything but squeamish about foul language. However, if you think that using '**ssed' entices everyone in your audience to read something you've written, you're dead-**s wrong, sir. IMHO, you're also doing far more damage to the cause of Mr. Trump than you're helping it.
I understand that Matt Taibbi has three (!) little boys now…I bet public education’s “lunacies” has just gotten real personal for him. Good! Sic’em Matt! 😉
The second most environmentally damaging action you can do is to move a third world person to the first world, the US as recipient being the worst. But it’s known that the most environmentally damaging action is to have a child, especially in the first world. I realize that many women need to satisfy their maternal instincts and men need to satisfy whatever compels them. Yet, I look at Matt and many similar minded friends who have three or more children, who clearly are decent people, with a sincere concern for others, but all who know better. I then wonder if humanity is not self-terminating.
Not everyone believes in environmental doom. Those beliefs are indistinguishable from religion and humans have a long history making sacrifices to the weather gods.
Counter evidence or arguments to my point would be interesting. But your first statement is at best a logical fallacy and your second starts with an opinion and ends with an irrelevancy.
Your side made a number of concrete predictions that turned out to be wrong. No more snow on Kilimanjaro? No more glaciers in GNP? I have yet to see any true predictions that I can verify with my own eyes.
While agricultural yields keep rising and natural-disaster fatalities keep falling, anguished screams about climate Armageddon keep getting louder because some made-up-for-the-grant-money models predict that one day the beneficial trends will reverse. It's like the Second Coming. Here, buy your absolution tickets, I mean climate offsets. That is my evidence.
The long history of humans being religious about the weather is all kinds of relevant.
You are inferring my point is based solely upon anthropogenic climate change being large. It does not need that. Ask yourself: Is there an upper limit on the number of human beings that this planet can support? If so, what is that number? If you don't have a number, you can ask someone. Allow me to offer 1 to 2 billion, which was the world population around 1900 before the huge number of species extinctions that occurred in the 20th century, by one estimate occurring at a rate 1000 times higher than in the last 60 million years. So by that number the world population is already 4-8 times too large.
The upper limit of sustainable human population is an unknown function of multiple unknowns, including undiscovered natural resources, future technological development, human propensity for war, and unexplained climate dynamics. Anyone who claims to know within a factor of 2 is a total quack.
And your comment doesn’t matter whatsoever. If somebody wants to have kids, that is their business and none of yours. My wife and I had 4 Montana born & raised strong strapping good looking tall, horse 🐎 back riding & hunting fly-fishing upper income earning tax paying, extremely patriotic boys.
And each one did their part in protecting this country. Because my family are firm believers in mandatory military-service for at least, 1 hitch. = 1 “ minimum active duty enlistment period.” For the Army, it’s 4 years. Marine Corp, it’s 4 to 6 years.
Depending upon what position / job the man signs, and or signed up for. 1 of our boys followed directly, Directly in my footsteps. By being accepted into our one and only “Federal Maritime College.” Kings Point. The United States Merchant Marine Academy. Kings Point New York.
https://www.usmma.edu/ And, after graduating he went right to work for our Navy’s MSC. That stands for. Military Sealift Command. Like I did. And I made it a career. 35 years, 3 months. (Takes 3 months at “MSC LANT DIVISION” to process out for, retirement. Loads of paperwork to sign one’s signature on.
Estimated amount of times you will sign one’s signature? Over 130 times. Because once again, MSC is Dept of, OF THE NAVY. It would seriously behoove you to click on both links.
So you can truly educate yourself. And while your on the MSC Link, I highly recommend looking over the, MSC Page of the ships that are under the command of MSC.
My last ship that I was Captain of, the “USNS PFC Dewayne T. Williams (T-AK 3009)” Under the banner of, “Prepositioning (PM3)” on the link of
https://www.msc.usff.navy.mil/Ships/Ship-Inventory/
My 2nd oldest son, Randall is making a career out of working for, and with MSC. I retired as a “Relief-Captain.” https://www.msc.usff.navy.mil/
Most, but not all Navy jobs are available for four-year enlistees, but some special programs (such as Nuclear Field) require a five year enlistment. These special programs usually offer increased training opportunities, and accelerated promotion.kör
Trump never left. He is a metastasized cancer and will outlast his own lifespan. And the Dems never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The biggest issue that I see with the Democratic party and its base is that they don't realize how serious the culture war insanity is to the right wing. The right views it as society ending and life threatening, and the left seems to think its a joke. Are we really laughing though? The left has to shut up about anything but bread and butter because the brand is too toxic for anything else right now.
Or, how about this, the Democrats actually walk their talk? This Charlie Brown walked away from the faux football snap after Obama.. They have not delivered or lived up to any of their “heartfelt” promises in decades…and they keep banking on the blind loyalty of their SJWs to proudly carry that disingenuous banner. In their relish to degrade the Deplorables, they missed their opportunity to show compassion to Middle America. Sad.
I find the left to basically be all or nothing. Obama care wasn't perfect, but tens of millions of people have healthcare that could not before. That included people in my family who now have have healthcare for chronic illness they could not access in the past.But it wasn't single payer so it was all crap right? And I reject the idea that every ill in society is somehow related to democrats. You have one political party that has 0 ideas and 0 interest in governance outside of tax cuts for themselves and their friends. Nothing else. We hold them to 0 account? It's all the democrats fault? Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is not a monolith but a cobbled together loose coalition. That makes it a lot more difficult to reach consensus. But to blame everything on one side when the other side brings nothing to the table? That's pretty disingenuous. And I also believe that there are bigger issues in the Midwest than hurt feelings about being called deplorable. 40 years of Reaganomics, shifts in manufacturing to overseas plants killing lots of little towns, etc. But that wasn't the democrats alone either. Globalism was going to happen either way.. That's the way the world was moving. I think offering people healthcare is showing compassion. I think insuring people have food benefits and heating assistance is showing compassion. The democrats have a lot of problems but let's lay blame fairly.
I am a democratic voter and not a SJW. I don't think that's too uncommon of a position to be in. There is also the factor that the right wing, having no ideas, only deals in grievance.
You misinterpreted most of my post, so I won’t correct it all. There’s a lot of gray and you seem to assigning black and white. I’m now an Independent and have vote all over the place for decades. I agree with everything you say about Republicans, except that two thirds of Democrats also vote in favor of their self serving programs. I never did it was all Democrats fault, I Implied they’re hypocrites which they are. Obama lost me when he had all the Insurance Co execs to the WH and assured them that their Profit making Fifedoms would be left alone..making the alleged ACA not A at all. Self insured until I turned 65, my premiums for a costly silver plan topped out at $1385/month.. healthy, not overweight, one BP med… and for mammogram, colonoscopy etc I had a $2500 deductible. The DNC imo has a huge imaging problem… throw in some of these other truth bombs Matt has covered , it’s hard to remain in the Party. Like the Fossil Republicans, there are so many career Dems that come off as entitled and out of touch. I want them all gone but don’t know how that happens with the in place machinery. Harry Reid died today. There’s a start. Admitting that speaking with protection from Senate Well he made up the story about Romney not paying taxes … with the post script “ it worked didn’t it?” We need less of that.
I apologize for misinterpreting. Didn't read a lot of Gray in your initial comment. I will be more specific. When referring to ACA I was talking more about medicaid expansion. My mother made less than 24K per year as a service worker her entire life and had multiple healthcare issues but could not qualify for medical assistance. Free clinics unfortunately don't do MR I's and so we found out about her cancer when she was already too far gone. medicaid expansion has saved a lot of lives. I don't disagree that the democrats way too corporate but the structure of our politics enables that. And we all allow it. 80 million people didn't even vote that were eligible⁰. The level of citizen disengagement, which is by design, allows a lot of the criminality. But my initial comment about the culture wars remains a factor. This isn't a left is evil to the right issue because both sides hate each other. The democrats are not the party that markets grievance as a winning election strategy. I'm much less concerned about student loan cancelation than I am about a psycho blowing themselves up at the local QFC. I fear we are getting to a place of increased political violence. I certainly don't want to live in that world and don't think it's worth getting there over pronouns, fake white guilt, or abortion for that matter. The democrats have got to tone down the culture crap and talk more about what they actually have done for people. Which is more than I think you are giving them credit wise. any decent thing that has been done for the people in the last 40 years has been done by the democrats. It's a small list, but the lesser of evil is still less evil and I'll take less evil.
I don’t think they hate each other at all. I think they throw back vodkas at the end of the day heralding their success at keeping you and I disagreeing over who is worse or the lesser evil. That’s such a low bar, I refuse to accept it! We need to get corporate $ out of our government.I’m still waiting for a legal Eagle to explain to me why Roberts voted for Citizens United….and, I know a lot of republicans who are far more reasonable than you infer. All of them are willing to pay higher taxes, they’d just like to see some promised results and not a single one is an unhinged psycho. 😀
I wasn't referring to politicians. I was referring to the general population, and we do hate other it seems. Owning the libs? The deplorables? The demonrats? Over 60 percent of average Republicans believe that the election was stolen. No evidence? Who cares? I am sure there are reasonable Republicans, but they don't vote that way. They accept unreasonable too often. Tea Party? Freedom Caucaus? They go to government to tear it apart because they fundamentally disagree with the idea that the government has a responsibility to make the lives of citizens better. I agree 100 percent that there should be no money in politics, and ALL elections should be publicly funded. I would go further and eliminate the ability to boldly lie as a politician. Death panels for instance? Stolen election? Eating babies? Say what you want, I don't see the left falling for the same sorts of bs. Q?
I will continue to pick the best of the available choices. And that is usually not a Republican because they offer no ideas nationally. Locally, I have as recently as last November, voted for a Republican. Because they had an approach to our housing concerns that I liked better. Hyperbole is less interesting to me than policy from the people asking for the privilege of being in office.
I would also love term limits. Three in the House and two in the Senate. We don't need career politicians. I would love to eliminate political parties all together. But here we are.
Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch, Democrats have never stopped worshipping the ground Obama walks on because he tossed you folk a teeny tiny healthcare bone while he was literally passing out extremely lucrative economic hand jobs to bankers & corporations & drone assassinating more bystanders than actual targets.
You folk spent 4 years uncritically swallowing every "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump is a Russian spy" or "Trump is the #1 cause of the heartbreak of psoriasis" canard that squirted out of the mouths of MSM faux journalists like shit out of diarrhea afflicted geese. Some of you still love that shit taste so much you happily show up with a spoon and a bib ready to chow down on some new Trump stank.
Then you brain addled wankers gleefully rehabilitated mass murderer, serial liar, wanna be combat pilot & mush mouthed dry drunk G. W. Bush just because the little daddy's boy said, "I don't like Trump."
Here's a neat little confrontation between an Iraq War vet & the Dems' new love muffin, George Wanker Bush.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5xJuyrUIIA
Pay close attention to Bush's tone deaf response to this vets righteous anger. He said "Senator Kerry, you said you'd behave yourself." A perfect response from the guy who made a WMD Easter egg hunt video in the Oval Orifice while people were dying in droves in Iraq.
Also pay attention to what happened to the guy who literally laid his life on the line for his country. He was muzzled.
Please enlighten me about the Trump decision that led to the deaths of over a million people. I'd love to see it.
I didn't vote for Trump either time. Each election is essentially a choice between a bowl of corporate shit and a bowl of corporate vomit so I no longer partake. If that bugs you...who gives a fuck?
While I didn't vote for Trump I did laugh heartily when Hillary was handed the "you lost to the Tang colored reality guy" door prize & stood there all slack jawed, dumbfounded & dumbstruck. Comedy at its best.
I also didn't vote Trump the 2nd time but I did prefer a Trump victory primarily because every Trump fart & belch elicited 20 op-eds about how those belch/farts will bring apocalyptic ruination to us all.
As it stands now we have Joe "Never had a good idea in over 40 years in the Senate" Biden as president and a huge MSM that runs cover for the senile old bastard.
I don't really give 2 shits about either one of these corrupt parties. They've always been corrupt & self serving. They've essentially tag teamed us to the brink of ruin. What's missing is a news media that takes the pronouncements of the elite & their political quislings and pushes back on them to see if cracks appear and lies become visible.
Instead we have two teams of partisan hack journalists who do nothing but pucker up & kiss power's backside while disingenuously laying blame at the feet of the other party.
Someone once said that voters who vote strictly along partisan lines are intellectually & morally weak.
I completely agree with that statement.
Here's a name that the PC addled identity politics deranged minority rights loving Dems quickly flushed down their stanky little memory holes:
Tara Reade.
Is it really surprising that the Dems PC spouting propaganda wing CNN is manned by serial fondlers & kiddie diddlers?
In my opinion partisan Dem-wits spent 4 years twitching & gibbering under the thrall of Trump Derangement mass hysteria which then quickly shifted to Covid Derangement mass hysteria with the occasional TDS sprinkled in like a spice.
Personally wouldn't let a partisan voter of any stripe watch my cats let alone make decisions for me. You people are as much the problem as the politicians you genuflect in front of.
If this place does degenerate into violence it is a violence we've practically begged for because so many partisan dipshits still choose to play in this rigged game. Passively and gleefully supping on dingleberries while the powerful chortle heartily at our mass impotence.
Miss out on your coffee this morning? Pretty much every voter is a partisan voter. Since there's only two sides, most of us pick one or the other. Congratulations on being so evolved and so much better than the rest of us! And by the way, I would never watch your cats. I fucking hate cats. Maybe you should have two cups this morning.
Actually RayJay what I miss are our little chats. You constantly amaze me with your ability to see the keyboard while you keep your melon head firmly lodged in your own ass crack.
It's an amazing talent.
Maybe you should change the name of your vanity project to Rump Rat.
By the way RayJay I'm pretty sure that pussies don't like you very much either.
You strike me as someone who is coming down and angry that they ran out.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This is maybe the third thread I have ever commented on. So not only do I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about, but I don't give a flying fuck either. Whatever you are angry about this morning, I'm not willing to be your punching bag. I try not to waste my time with small minds or angry little men.
Independent (41%) is the most popular party affiliation in the US.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Much appreciated. That was great.
I'm late to the discussion but it's heartening to hear some acknowledgement on TK of value of the Dem policy efforts to help people and address their hardships. It's a topic that Matt seems to go out of his way to avoid -- have to say it gets to look like pandering to his subscriber base. I doubt it but I'm just lost sometimes by the one-sidedness of his dem bashing. Yes, he's doing a heroic job of spotlighting the distractions undermining Dem's ability to win elections and advance their agenda. I'm just not sure where he's taking that politically -- abandon the unruly dems and work for a third party? That'll be a generational project. The shit is hitting the fan here and now. Wicked storms, wild fires, 65 degree temps today in Alaska... We could be on the cusp of an unfolding and accelerating disaster whose consequences neither government or the private sector can deal with. Trump pulled out of the climate accord and began dismantling climate programs. A disturbing share of his party would do the same or worse if in power. More acknowledgement of the stakes would be helpful TK.
But haven't we been on that "cusp" as you call it for the last 20 to 30 years? Coastal, flooding caused allegedly by "climate change", or its original name "global warming" was supposed to put Manhattan, Miami Beach, and a whole lot of points in between, and beyond, under water. It didn't happen. Germany substantially shut down its prolific coal production, as well as, its nuclear capacity (yesterday announcing the closing of 3 of its 6 remaing plants. It simply imported its (admittedly cleaner) energy from Russia - meanwhile China and India each construct the equivalent of one coal-powered plant per day. So Mr. Biden wants the US to amp wind and solar from its 8% of our energy needs to 100% by Government Fiat (aslo known as "carrot and stick" incentives and disincentives. I am sorry if I don't think that "cusp" of yours justifies tearing down a multi-hundreds of trillion dollars in petro-based infrastructure. It is not at all incorrect to label that effort as Fucking Crazy! There, that says it all!
You make some decent points I will grant you, but the reason the Republicans are not exactly "front and center" on bringing forth legislation to fix what some perceive as problems has to do with the nature of Republican principles (and conservative ideology. Like the physians motto: first of all do no harm! The Democrats rush to convert 10-12 trillion dollars in the existing fossil based energy grid, when wind and soar are at 8% of this total, is insanity. (Look at Germany's EnergyWind program. You are championing a great historical party that wants to spend $3.5 trillion dollars to support the only leg of the stool that supports your party: black American voters. The party desperately needs to produce for them - and I am not disparaging that "in principle", but, as with so many of the party's initiatives (born, I will concede, of a desire to do objectively "good things", they fail to restrain excessive zeal, confidence in government, and end up promoting extreme policies that create mischief in the society, the market place, the voting booth...truly the list goes on. They could never, for example, set up a robust single -payer health system providing solid basic health care, catastrophic coverage, and reasonable prescription coverage: all eminently doable. Why? Easy. They would in the first breath (given an opportunity) provide abortion of demand services, gender reasignment surgery, unlimited mental health care, 28-day drug programs (which have low success at best), and a host of other "side projects" - for want of a better term. Having read and reread your thoughtful, reasonable, and somewhat defensible comments (though comments without context or balance), I suspect that you will agree with much of what I have to say. I used to vote for Democrats, but not exclusively, and to this day, I can make a decent case for Democrats (as, I do, for instance, in their approach to the pandemic), and I can excoriate "my side" for its "fuck all" opposition to necessary government mandates, as I find my health and safety is a "public good" well deserving of mandatory protections. What I can't do is excuse a party from supporting the garbage that the left promotes about America, and its hatred of the country from its foundational institutions all the way to the present day. I abhor the dissembling of the party's support for CRT (or its functional equivalents) - indeed, they should own up to what all of the rest can see: they believe in it, they support it, and, if given an opportunity would shove this hateful drivel down our throats.
I think some-maybe lots- of people believe in the CRT nonsense. They tend to be on the younger side of the spectrum and are fickle voters anyway. What frustrates me is that defund the police or CRT is hung around the neck of every Democrat, whether we are far left or center of the road. We don't hang the same extremist views on every single Republican voter, although their tolerance for insane behavior goes much further than the left. We define the left by people making up a million genders or CRT. I have been voting since 1992 and that is not my agenda at all.The only thing I am championing is choosing the best of what options are in front of me. I am open to better ideas all of the time. A significant challenge the Democratic Party has that the Republican party usually doesn't is that we are never all on the same page. The inner party drama is absurd, and the factions that make up the voting popular populist of the Democratic Party often have lots of differences. We hold the Democratic Party to an entirely different standard as far as I can tell. I'm not saying there is not room for improvement because my God.But one side believes you should be able to vote and 1 side does not. 1 side is totally cool with autocracy and 1 side is not. That's my basement right now. That's where my bottom line is. I sometimes wonder if we will be a United States in 10 years. And I am terrified of that thought.
The brand is toxic because everything it stands for is toxic.
Why isn't the culture war insanity an issue to the left? Do the majority of democrats believe that equity is better than equality? Do they actually believe that the federal government is an agent of benevolence? Do they actually believe that the democrat party has done anything to benefit the majority or a significant minority of the people it has governed at any level - local, state, or federal?
The culture of censorship, mass surveillance, forced experiment drug taking, pandering to and wall street and silicon valley, a borderless "nation"... what cultural benefits have the dems proposed recently that will make life in the US better? Yeah, the left, imo, should shut up about just about everything they are thinking because no one (except those that would profit personally as a dividend for instituting their proposals, not as an intended beneficiary (they have rarely benefited from those programs).
Yes, I'm of the right, economically and pretty liberal socially - in that individuals should be free (but groups can F-off) - and I do not see a single benefit of anything the dems have proposed or done, recently. Help me out here, what am I missing?
Let me flip that back to you. I've already said that I support their willingness to govern, their willingness to offer programs that make lives better such as healthcare, I've stated a case. What exactly have the republicans done? What have they proposed that would make my life better? What did they stand for? Their last convention had a platform of supporting dear leader. That was it. One side wants to govern and the other side has abdicated all responsibility. I'm not going to defend the democrats when their governing partners don't even bother to try. When there is a reasonable alternative, then tell me all about it.
I'm not going to argue that the republican alternative is a pure example of benevolence, but it wasn't a dear leader wankfest, either. The right wants, simply and generally, to be freed of stupid regulations based on pseudo-science/wokeism/neoliberalism. That last one separates the dear leader followers from the mitch mcconnell/mittens pubs.
Trump deregulated the economy, imposed tariffs, pushed at CCP, made EU think about NATO, and did not start a foreign war. The economy exploded and more people were working than ever, blacks, hispanics, everyone shared in the boom.
Then the two-fold shitstorms of covid and blm gave the dems what they needed to regain (some fleeting) power, at the expense of thousands of businesses, entire communities, and the economy (althought obama set the course to ruin it in 2010 and biden is trying to nail the coffin).
You're a reasonable person, you can think that what the dems tell you matters, that they have done anything at all to benefit anyone but their leadership, but i don't buy it. Look at their cities, look at their states...most all in decline or have declined to shitholes. Look where people with the means to flee are fleeing from - dem states and cities.
To assert that the pubs have/were abdigating responsibility is simply false, imo. It is the dem AGs and Governors that have abdigated responsibilty. It is the dems who have sold out to/bought (ymmv) cancel culture and the instruments to do so. It is the dems that allow antifa and blm to run feral through their domains. It is the dems that sold out kids to teacher unions...
I'm a Bernie/Yang supporter, registered Green, and as a 65-year-old guy who believes in old fashioned principles like-people should be judged on who they are, not the color of their skin- the culture war is a big deal to me. I find myself faced with just as much blindness and craziness on the left as on the right. I won't vote Republican, I just won't vote
Edit: just as much blindness and craziness from the blue side as from the red
This isn't just bringing back Trump. This is single-handedly breaking the entire Democratic party's electoral map.
According to the most accurate polling before the VA election and the AP exit polls, Youngkin WON HISPANICS.
BY! DOUBLE! DIGITS!
I work in the business and if you told me a year ago that a Republican would win Hispanics in Virginia by 12 points or more, I'd say you were sharing a crackpipe with the alien love child of Karl Rove and Dick Morris.
Speaking bluntly about the numbers, the only reason Republicans don't win almost every major election - especially these days - is that minority groups (other than Cubans) vote Democrat at a disproportionate rate for reasons that are more about cultural inertia than policy.
If minorities start voting like whites - just AVERAGE, not hardcore right-wing Cuban levels - then that spells nationwide disaster for the Left.
One of the problems with CRT and other programs spewing from schools of ed is that they are designed to teach kids what to think. Unfortunately with this kind of schooling, kids are discouraged from learning to think.
It’s unfortunate that the biggest concern with the lunacy in our education system is the chance that it could bring back Trump rather than the affect it’s having on kids.
I'm interested to hear your primary concerns re our education system. We're likely in violent agreement ;)
I not sure i.e., we have survived (I use that term lightly) over a century of an education system that's not changed much in the way it teaches children while "barely" and I do mean barely (Jan. 6th) survived Trump's four years IMHO.
That was incoherent, but if you’re saying we barely survived 4 yrs of Trump you’re clearly trapped in the matrix.
No, I'm living in the real world. I suspect you're the one in the matrix.
If we barely survived Trump, then the fuck happened with Bush the Younger and Obeezy?
Obeezy?
Obama, but the hip, slightly disrespectful way to say it.
Gaslighting much??
Matt, thanks for doing this. However, I would ask that you consider the format for the Callin. I would like this to be more of an AMA with some back and forth rather than hearing your guests speak at length about their experiences and or opinion. Clearly, there are many knowledgeable folks that subscribe to your substak; however, I want to hear more from you than from them, no disrespect to those listeners. After all, this is your substack and again I want to ask questions and hear more from you. What do you think?
I also would like Matt and the callers to work on dialogue rather than monologues. The callers are passionate and excited to have a voice and have real life experience to impart. But information only becomes knowledge when it is debated. Callers should make a statement and then Matt can answer and then lob it back. But I would also limit the discussion to 5 minutes or so unless it is a rip roaring good dialogue. There were only 4 callers in one hour and I bet there were many more listeners who would have liked to chime in.
I like your idea and the more I thought about it yesterday, I think another approach he can take is to stratify callers by their subscription amount or contribution. In other words he could have a premium version where he invites only those folks that have contributed more to the substack and allow for a longer conversation like he had yesterday with each of those. But I still think an a.m. a session is better for most people even those that haven’t contributed that much where as you say you can just limit the amount of time to five minutes or so and allow more colors to participate.
I feel there is one thing I need to speak up about as a youth liberationist, Matt. I understand that standardized testing is favored by many in the Asian-American communities since it has proven itself as a way for their kids to break into good colleges in high numbers, and because it is something that is measurable. What, exactly, however, does it measure in terms of individual level of skill, and what does it fail to do the same with?
Please note that many, many students -- including myself, when I was a student -- do/did poorly at standardized tests. Those latter tests only measure *very specific* skills, specifically the ability to memorize information. They also favor test-taking ability in general, which is not something all students, or people, are good at. So, should individuals like myself have justifiably been left behind? As a published author who has skills that are eminently useful to society despite not in the same areas as students who excelled in standardized testing, were those types of measurable tests fair to kids like me? There is also a good amount of criticism that relying on standardized testing negatively affects how educators must teach, requiring them to "teach to the test" and favoring rote memorization rather than building upon other types of intelligence and skills that are suppressed for largely political reasons -- critical thinking skills, problem resolution, oratory skills, and creative ability. In fact, the rote memorization standard has been favored to the point where a social studies teacher I had in middle school had us waste our time memorizing the nicknames of every state in the U.S. and made that an important point in our tests. Should the fact that I had difficulty memorizing all those nicknames even after hours and hours reading them over and over again mean that I should have been denied entry into a good college?
Standardized, one-size-fits-all education and tests simply prepare us to be cogs in the corporate machine, and lets face it, too much of Asian culture is geared towards favoring this type of conformity-centric success. I am *not* trying to say that this does not result in such students ultimately gaining entry into well-paying jobs which gives them the best chance to rise into the ranks of the middle class, but let's ask ourselves: Would this be as favored in a system that was non-capitalist and thus not focused upon wage-earning and profit-making rather than doing our parts to meet the needs of everyone in society?
I am not saying that standardized testing is bereft of the merits you mentioned. I am simply saying it does not work for everyone, and when it comes to the topic of education, I see no discussion coming from any side -- including your own, Matt -- that alternate methods of education which measure the value of different types of skills is needed. Have you heard of the unschooling movement and the varied forms of education it offers students with different needs, skill sets, and preferences? I think this needs to enter the discussion in a big way, and education needs to stop being defined as a single type of "universal" public schooling method that all students are expected to excel in.
Now, for the record, I concur that all students should learn the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, and civics. If they are not doing that in the California system, then I agree that is the problem. However, not all students are going to be able to acquire *advanced* skills in any of the above, and as such, a good and flexible education system that focuses on identifying a student's strengths rather than expecting everyone to excel at the same things, at the same pace and penalizes them for any weaknesses and failure to follow the pace of the crowd is going to fail a multitude of students. That is not so much learning as it is competing with other students in a race to the top, and what does that remind us of, Matt?
I agree with you that students who are taking the same pre-algebra classes for years without moving on to calculus is a waste -- for students who show a good aptitude in math, that is. Those like myself, however, who frankly suck at math are not going to excel in calculus, or even geometry, if we are pushed into it no matter how many hours you keep them after school and force reams of homework and "extra" work down their throats and punishing them when they do not succeed by denying them the right to have a life outside of schooling, while simultaneously wasting their time and the time of the teachers and/or tutors who are trying to get blood out of a stone. These students would be better off, once learning the basics (which all of us can do), in focusing their efforts into the advanced levels of subjects they *do* excel at while letting the math teachers focus on advancing the students who excel at math into calculus et al. The education system should not be morphed into a system that mirrors the capitalist system we oppose: to force everyone to ruthlessly compete in a race to the top, favor some skill sets over others by giving greater rewards to some, and deliberately penalizing and demoralizing those who fail to "make the grade." Some students will excel at some subjects better than others, and learning needs to be a fun and relaxed place that respects students as individuals and offers challenges based on the individual ability of different students to succeed at them. This *does not* mean shirking education in the basics of everything -- as much as I suck at math, I did get B's, C's, C-minuses in general math, pre-algebra, and even standard high school algebra. It was when I was expected to move beyond despite my clear lack of individual ability to handle the more advanced material in that area of academic endeavor that I found my time wasted and my life negatively effected.
Now, this is where input from youth liberationists is most important: the ongoing wars between who should decide what is best for students, parents or bureaucrats? Well, how about letting *students* weigh in on that? Not only as a group, but as individuals. Yes, I know, Matt, that parents love their kids more than anyone, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to make the best decisions for them. Parents are human, and thus vulnerable to all sorts of political and social influences that may result in them making decisions that is best for *the parents themselves* and not for their kids. I know you are a parent yourself, Matt, so I ask you to resist being offended by this statement and instead take a hard, critical look at what I'm trying to say here: the fact that parents love their kids so much may also make it impossible for them to be completely objective at times, and to assess their children fairly. There will be times kids need not only their own voices to be heard and *counted*, but also for there to be administrative boards, comprised of people of all vocations and ages -- teachers, parents, kids, students, etc. -- who are capable of providing an objective assessment that is *not* unduly influenced by emotion. Let's be honest here, Matt -- love, like all emotions, can have its dark side, including the desire to control those we love while arguing that it has the best intentions behind it. Even if the best of intentions are truly there, that does not mean the end result will be best for those involved. We also need to recognize the unpleasant fact that love and respect do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.
This was another serious problem I had: the family who raised me certainly loved me a lot, but they had *zero* respect for me as a person, and what my capabilities were. They simply wanted, more than anything else, for me to be able to *conform* as much as any other kid, including within the standardized education system. They didn't want me to learn the way that was best for me, they simply wanted me to get good grades within the established system, and when I proved unable to "fit in," they worked *with* the teachers and school officials to punish me for it, hoping that would get me to improve. Try to take a guess how effective that proved to be, and what it did to my emotional health. I was considered to be learning disabled by the system. Was it truly a "disorder" on my part, or the result of my being forced to participate in a one-size-fits-all system that cannot work for a large number of students? And does this system truly educate us in the all the ways it should? As undeniably important as reading, writing, and arithmetic are, whether in their basic or advanced forms, is this all really there is to learning?
Does this mean I am arguing that the state should be the "winner" in these disputes? No, because I fully agree that bureaucrats are under a huge amount of political influences that likewise intrude upon objective assessment. This is why we need local boards filled with students in addition to adults of every stripe. We also need the inherent competency of young people to be respected and acknowledged and to cease denying them access to information that can help them grow and develop at their own pace. This, I think, would enable parents, educators, and students alike to assess matters not only for education as a whole, but for recognizing that the realm of education to take multiple possible forms to meet both collective and individual needs.
Your grades measure your competence and your board scores measure your IQ, and yes IQ matters. The reason there is push back against board scores is that it effectively does what it intends to do, overwhelmingly well. In fact, sat scores are a better predictor of college success than grades, whatever college people go to.
Grades measure your ability to memorize information and test taking skills, because that is what the standardized education system focuses on. That hardly determines overall competence outside a scenario requiring these specific skills. SAT scores force many students to deal with subjects their college major may not focus upon. That is why, like many students, my SAT scores were just average but I graduated from my college cum lauda. Hence, the SATs were hardly a signifier of my success in college, or of many students like me. What I have noticed is that the main group of people supporting the continuation of standardized testing are those whose innate skill set is individually suited for it. This again suggests that a level playing field requires multiple educational approaches and methods available besides the current schooling system, and that grading and standardized testing are not good for accurately or fairly measuring all types of intelligence or skill sets. We need a multifaceted system that seeks to push all skill sets towards success, not one that only focuses on a few specific talents and "weeds out" the rest as disposable "failures."
Classroom grades should not measure memorization skills, if you have a good curriculum. Having a good memory (I don't) helps of course, but being able to process information, to evaluate choices and data rationally and logically is what should be measured. But to an extent, when I was in public school you are correct there...but again, that's a function of the curriculum sucking (I was in one of the best PS's in MD, which is well-regarded).
Of course SATs don't predict everyone's outcome, but for statistically significant research, they track very well with college outcomes. Don't forget also that doing great in college isn't an absolute predictor of career outcomes. But, again, statistical significance shows that those that do better in college do better in their careers. It's simply math.
I have two kids, one got great SATs/ACT and the other meh. I did slightly above average I think 1190. I did crappy in college until I didn't, took a while, but I am quite happy in my career that has absolutely nothing to do with my major, molecular bio. I see SATs as a tool, and I think you'll find the opposite of what you say is true, it is those that don't do well and their supporters who want to do away with them.
Really, I don't care what the colleges do, I just think it is clearly a poor choice to simply throw away a tool, a good one.
w/r/t what we need. That depends on your goal. If you want Princeton to look exactly like America from a racial standpoint, there are ways to do it. If you want to ensure that precious public dollars are not wasted on unprepared kids, there are ways to do that too. We have seen the results of putting kids into programs they don't belong in and they are disastrous, for the most part.
Is college as important as the general society makes it out to be, imo, not by a longshot. But as long as helicopter parents and helicopter wokesters clamor for prestige over a proper education, we'll be mired in these stupid debates where emotion trumps rational thought.
Hi, neil, and thank you for thoughtful reply.
"Classroom grades should not measure memorization skills, if you have a good curriculum."
Agreed, though I would replace the word "good" with *flexible.* All students require the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, computer literacy, and civics, but beyond that it becomes more diverse.
"Of course SATs don't predict everyone's outcome, but for statistically significant research, they track very well with college outcomes."
As noted in my exchanges with Greg in this thread, they certainly didn't indicate mine. And I do not think I was a rare outlier here. That is because in college I got to *specialize*, and I did well in most of my core courses.
"I see SATs as a tool, and I think you'll find the opposite of what you say is true, it is those that don't do well and their supporters who want to do away with them."
Which is natural and understandable, because those who lack the test-taking, memorization, and math skills required by SATs are not going to do well with them, which provides a huge -- and unfair -- advantage to everyone who does have that particular skill set. Just as it's natural for those who do well with standardized tests wanting to keep them and why they defend them so strongly. And why, to be fair to everyone, I suggest multiple measurement and teaching methods be utilized, depending on the student. Personally, I want to see every student learn, and no one get "weeded out," as I noted to Greg.
"Really, I don't care what the colleges do, I just think it is clearly a poor choice to simply throw away a tool, a good one."
Not necessarily just throw it away. But simply recognize it is not a reliable way to measure certain types of intelligence, and should not be a requirement for all students.
"w/r/t what we need. That depends on your goal. If you want Princeton to look exactly like America from a racial standpoint, there are ways to do it. If you want to ensure that precious public dollars are not wasted on unprepared kids, there are ways to do that too. We have seen the results of putting kids into programs they don't belong in and they are disastrous, for the most part."
I think that is the very crux of my point.
"Is college as important as the general society makes it out to be, imo, not by a longshot. But as long as helicopter parents and helicopter wokesters clamor for prestige over a proper education, we'll be mired in these stupid debates where emotion trumps rational thought."
Fully agree. Especially when college is becoming prohibitively expensive, extremely selective over who gets scholarships, and dominated by curricula that is increasingly "woke."
First. Do we need testing? We do if we believe in a meritocracy. Dictators and bureaucrats do their best impede those that excel. That means we need to measure and separate students based on competence of skills. Second, writing a good test is difficult. Multiple choice is preferred and can be used to measure analytical thinking not just memorization. Yes, math can be very hard for those that are not inclined. As a math teacher for 15 years (Naval Flight Officer for 6 years and IBM specialist for 30) I can tell you writing skills for some is also very hard. Engineers spend half their time writing.
Both math and writing skills are needed for a number of jobs. Sometimes I think journalist should be a little better at math. One example is measuring the accountability of school systems. Today Detroit Public Schools gets funded $12,500 per student per year. With just a little math that should tell them that a classroom of 30 students means the school gets $375,000 per classroom. The teacher with benefits gets $75,000. The building is paid for. There are no taxes or insurance cost. Where does the remaining $300,000 per classroom per year go? By the way that average funding for students in New York is $20,000 per student per year. Multiply that number by 30, or even 20 for each classroom. Tell me, does education get enough money? Do we get enough student achievement for our money? That is why math is needed.
I will say that the requirement for four years of high school math in Michigan may be a little too much. I think students may be better served if economics or statistics can be used in place of per-calculus and advanced algebra.
Teaching to the test is needed sometimes. That is exactly what is done in the Navy for many of the skills especially flight school. Even the physical skills of flying are tested in that way. For less discrete skills like journalism there may be more room for judgement but there are still many things to be remembered. Some of those things, like multiple sources for a story, questioning skills, and the analysis skills of a student must be measured. I think many of those skills have been forgotten by too many journalists and that is one of the reasons I read TK.
"Do we need testing? We do if we believe in a meritocracy. Dictators and bureaucrats do their best impede those that excel. That means we need to measure and separate students based on competence of skills."
I would argue, Greg, that a capitalist system is not a meritocracy. We favor some skills over others based upon those which allow someone to become the best cog in the machine without questioning things. That works wonderfully for authoritarian dictators. Any good journalist would tell you that the last thing dictators want is truly great journalists with good critical thinking skills and an education system that allows for the production of numerous such individuals. They tend to be comparatively indifferent towards those with great math skills, since both egalitarian and authoritarian societies alike benefit from good engineers and scientists.
Secondly, everyone has skills that can benefit a truly egalitarian society. The fact that capitalism values some people based on how much money they make the owners of a business and devalue others based on having benefits for society that are less likely to make lots of money for capitalists does not indicate an overall lack of merit in that skill set.
"Second, writing a good test is difficult. Multiple choice is preferred and can be used to measure analytical thinking not just memorization."
In practice, multiple choice tends to work for those who have good rote memorization skills but not necessarily analytical skills. You can express good analytical skill with research and the written word, which is why some people are better at doing that than using equations or picking out answers on a piece of paper.
"Yes, math can be very hard for those that are not inclined. As a math teacher for 15 years (Naval Flight Officer for 6 years and IBM specialist for 30) I can tell you writing skills for some is also very hard. Engineers spend half their time writing."
Yes, which is why not everyone can do math well, and not everyone can write well. There are some who can do both relatively well, but that does not mean they necessarily have merits over those who can do one or the other only, since those who can do one well but not the other tend to heavily excel at the one thing that they do well. This is why you do not see many engineers go on to write books, either fiction or non-fiction, and not many authors who double as mathematicians. I personally know one doctor who writes great creative fiction, but I never met another who has. There are some doctors who write good non-fiction, but their style tends to be "dry" rather than accessible to the non-scholar. Some people are specialists, while others are a "jack of most trades" who can do many things, but not all of them in exemplary fashion as the specialists can. This is also why I have known many people who did well in the schooling system and were "straight A" students go on to work non-skilled blue collar jobs, and why my high school valedictorian go on to nothing more "exciting" or profitable than a sign language interpreter.
Does the fact that I lack math skills as well as writing skills mean that I'm of less merit to society that someone who has both skills? No, because those who are experts at multiple things are rare, the few who have both skills often do not have the ambition to go with their multiple skill sets, and because my lack of math skills has not hindered me compared to those with decent math skills because there is plenty of software available to figure out percentages without having to do them in my head. Further, I can hire an accountant to do my taxes for me.
Finally, as a socialist I am not seeking to establish a "meritocracy." I am seeking to establish a better society where everyone has value, everyone's skills at whatever level are used to the fullest, the rule of the system is cooperation rather than competition, and everyone benefits well on a material level from the bounty modern productive technology can create rather than some prospering while others are not given full access to this bounty despite their contribution to society because they are deemed of "less value."
"Both math and writing skills are needed for a number of jobs. Sometimes I think journalist should be a little better at math."
Not if you have that software I mentioned and hire those who are good at math to do your accounting for you, or to crunch numbers (i.e., a statistician). If Matt isn't good at math but has exemplary journalistic skills, does that mean he should be held back and get "less" for his hard working contributions to society than another who may have better math skills but is not breaking stories or doing the type of incisive writing Matt is doing? Should a published author who can do calculations in his head be receiving more access to the material wealth of society than me despite all my hard work, just because I use the digital calculator, the Excel software, and a hired accountant to do my business-related math instead of figuring it out in my head as I go along?
"One example is measuring the accountability of school systems. Today Detroit Public Schools gets funded $12,500 per student per year. With just a little math that should tell them that a classroom of 30 students means the school gets $375,000 per classroom. The teacher with benefits gets $75,000. The building is paid for. There are no taxes or insurance cost. Where does the remaining $300,000 per classroom per year go? By the way that average funding for students in New York is $20,000 per student per year. Multiply that number by 30, or even 20 for each classroom. Tell me, does education get enough money? Do we get enough student achievement for our money? That is why math is needed."
I think, Greg, that because you have exemplary math skills and you teach the subject has made you take my chosen example for critiquing the system a bit too personally. To clear that up, I want to say that I *do* value math heavily. I do agree it's very needed by society. What I was saying is that not everyone should be expected to have that skill, and get held back from success, achievement, or access to societally-produced wealth if they do not. This is why I value software producers, engineers, and scientists who have exemplary math skills. I do not think even a socialist society could function without such experts. I was simply saying that writing and creative skills with or without talent at math to go along with them are likewise valuable to society, and no one should get penalized, held back, or given less of a share of the vast collective wealth modern technology can produce for what they cannot do; instead, we all should be rewarded for what we *can* do well. Further, not everyone lives up to their full potential, and some specialists make the most out of what skill sets they do have. These things all need to be considered, which boils down to: everyone has value to society, no matter what skills they have or lack.
"I will say that the requirement for four years of high school math in Michigan may be a little too much. I think students may be better served if economics or statistics can be used in place of per-calculus and advanced algebra."
I do not disagree there. I also think, however, that students like myself, who lack good math skills but have high levels of skill at something else, should not be required to take any math beyond the basics. Trust me on this: the basics of math, coupled with the software available, is enough to get you through life in general, and naturally high math skills are not required to do certain jobs well. Of course, high math skills *are* required to do other types of jobs well, which is why I agree they should be valued. I just do not think we should have the type of "meritocracy" that values those with specific skills and devalues those who lack them, or expect everyone to be a jack of all trades. The schooling system as we know it does that, which is why I favor other forms of education to be established alongside it so that every person is given the opportunity to develop what skills they do have to their fullest, and to encourage them to use them to their fullest extent in making contributions to society.
"Teaching to the test is needed sometimes."
It is if testing is more valued than actual learning, which rote memorization alone does not guarantee. There are multiple forms of teaching that enables students to acquire knowledge, and memorization skill is just one of them, and one that does not work for everyone.
"That is exactly what is done in the Navy for many of the skills especially flight school."
Which, frankly, may once again show why you have a bias in favor of this method of teaching, Greg. If this type of system worked for you, then I think it's fortuitous for you that you were taught within its framework. But that is more luck than actual merit, because if the system favored other types of skills over yours, then you may not have done nearly as well -- and I think that would have been just as unfair to you as the extant situation was to me. That is why I think we need multiple forms of educational methods for different students, which is designed to ensure that everyone has the capacity to learn according to their individual abilities and to develop their strengths in full. A one-size-fits-all system does not accomplish this, but instead becomes a system whose main purpose is to "weed out."
"For less discrete skills like journalism there may be more room for judgement but there are still many things to be remembered."
Which is where frequent research, frequent reading & re-reading, research skills in general, good note-taking habits, and search engine software comes into the picture. This is why a journalist who lacks good rote memorization skills can still be not just a good journalist, but a great journalist.
"Some of those things, like multiple sources for a story, questioning skills, and the analysis skills of a student must be measured."
Agreed, but they do not require standardized testing to do that. Sometimes, just looking at the end results of someone's work, along with a good amount of training, can determine that. As an editor, I can assess a fellow writer's level of skill by reading their work rather than giving them tests that require them to answer multiple choice questions. This is why I think the likes of Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and Jimmy Dore are great journalists despite never having given them a test or checked their academic records.
"I think many of those skills have been forgotten by too many journalists and that is one of the reasons I read TK."
And I think, based on personal experience, that Matt (as one example) may or may not have good memorization skills or good skill at math. If he lacks either, there are ways for a great journalist to compensate for that. We have no evidence that Matt does the math or sifts out information in his head without reading & re-reading, checking detailed notes he makes and refers to while writing an article, or gathering the stats from others who are competent number-crunchers. He may indeed do these things, but if he does, then I think he is a great journalist despite that fact, not because of it.
Christopher, please, please use proper paragraphs. Properly. 4 to 5 lines. Please, I beg you.
I will make an extra effort to do so in the future. I tried to divide them into sections as much as possible; I just didn't follow the strict 4 to 5 lines rule. But since you begged so firmly, I will make sure to do that in the future :-)
For what it's worth, Garland, I think I did that more or less in my subsequent posts in this thread. I apologize for failing to do so in the first post and made your reading experience less satisfying as a result.
It is just a matter of time before the Dems start losing women in droves with their "woke" trans religious beliefs that they call "science". Women are socialized to be very tolerant but the push to celebrate trans women and erase women is going to blow up in the face of those who worship at the transwoman alter.
A good companion piece to Matt's Loudoun series is this article by George Packer in the Atlantic that covered many of the same issues when they were introduced into New York Public schools.
"When the Culture War Comes for the Kids
Caught between a brutal meritocracy and a radical new progressivism, a parent tries to do right by his children while navigating New York City’s schools.
By George Packer
October 2019 Issue"
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/10/when-the-culture-war-comes-for-the-kids/596668/
This was the article that taught me that kids were actually selling "N-Word Passes" to each other. Something that originally was just a joke on 4chan was taken seriously by kids and became part of a school culture crisis.
I hope she calls in .. . and lets see how she really feels?
Nikole Hannah-Jones has accused Taibbi of misquoting her.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1476025160574640131
*i'm doing the dishes, you'll have to call back ltr.
@getcallin have been promising an Android version "soon" for 4 months now.
https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=Android%20from%3Agetcallin&src=typed_query&f=live
I'll take it with a pinch of salt until something more concrete or informative is announced
And then there are those of us old folks who mostly use their "smart" telephone mostly like their now obsolete rotary dial phones.
I personally prefer using a large screen powerful notebook computer, but then I spent much of my working life after leaving my newspaper reporter/editor job as a professional programmer and entrepreneur.
If it were not so silly, I'd lodge an elder abuse complaint with the State of Florida.
I think that basketball is inherently racist and should be "restructured" much in the same way math should be according to Deborah Lowenberg Ball by lowering the height of the basket and not keeping score similar to eliminating standardized testing in CA. It has been systematically developed to decrease the potential for whites to advance. As all people are created equal, both physically and mentally, it would stand to reason that had these equality driven standards been implemented when I was learning the game 40 years ago I, as a now overweight 55 y/o 6' white man, would have had a better potential to play in the NBA. I didn't do well with basketball because I am an average 6' white man and also didn't do well in math because I have an average brain not because I didn't try hard at both or had bad teachers or coaches. I'm not a Herbert Spencer social darwinist but do believe in aptitude. BTW I suck at drumming. Guess I should have try to learn it without using the heads or better yet, the sticks.
Well, since you brought it up, it’s obvious that Kris Jenner and her Kardashian crew are racist.
No justice, no sports.
To More Freedom:
I agree, and believe Dr. Fauci would agree with you that "the known" comes from RCTs (double-blind trials). When something is not known for sure, such as mask efficacy, we must rely on observations from trusted sources, and even common sense as he says, which certainly can be wrong, but are the best we have until proved right or wrong.
While anyone could be corrupted by self-interest, I have no reason to distrust Dr. F. when it comes to his motives for his recommendations. An overly suspicious person might distrust another when a possible motive for dishonesty can be thought of, but I have found greater accuracy in saying "What does he have to lose by lying" (for Fauci, everything. For Trump, nearly nothing it seems).
By the way, as a primary care doctor who has followed Fauci since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, I have found him wrong on more than one issue. His stance on masks at the beginning of Covid turned out wrong, though understandable, since masks weren't known to be effective at the time, and a run on masks needed to be avoided so the hospitals wouldn't run out. Since then, observational studies-not RCTs but the best we have- have shown a substantial decrease in transmission. I believe we should go with that til disproved.
John Cappadona
> "His stance on masks at the beginning of Covid turned out wrong, though understandable, since masks weren't known to be effective at the time, and a run on masks needed to be avoided so the hospitals wouldn't run out."
Dr. Fauci knew perfectly well, or should have, masks were effective. That's why they didn't want to run out of them. In fact, he has admitted he made a 'calculated' decision to 'lie' to the public, ostensibly in his view to avoid a run on masks for first responders and the larger good. I reject that argument out of hand.
I think the American public would have understood the precarious reality of the situation and, more importantly, would have made-do (scarfs, etc.) with the knowledge this virus was highly contangious. Instead, they were told a lie .. . and wonder why people lack confidence in our medical professions 'leadership'. *i do suspect it must have been difficult for Dr. Fauci to sort things out in the Trump 'UV light' Kung Flu environment.
Bottom line: despite being the 'richest' most powerful country in the world and, ironically, a center for biomedical research and advancement, the U.S. leads the world in Covid mortality.
This is nonsense. How about you show us "Democrats' Education" compared to "Republicans' Education". Probably not, because this is a media created pacifier for imbeciles to suck.
Criticism of "Democrats Education" is not the same thing as support for "Republican Education".
*& vice versa.
Next week's column will be "Media lunacies will bring back Trump."
Matt it is so nice to find a site on the internet where the subscribers are sane, sensible and not disturbed or easily upset.
Hi Matt, Is there an easy way for you to turn these Callin discussions into transcripts? I like to listen to them, but sometimes there is something said that I would like to note, like your comment about propaganda techniques.
Christofer,
Let me reply to your second point first. "In practice, multiple choice tends to work for those who have good rote memorization skills but not necessarily analytical skills."
Here is a multiple-choice question that takes very little if any memorization skill and whole lot of analytical skills. The question goes like this.
"There are three boxes, A,B,and C of which only one has anything of value in it. Assume you pick box A as your best guess. Before revealing whether you are right or not I, knowing which box contains the something of value, truthfully told you box B does not have anything of value. Which of the following answers would provide the best chance of finding the thing of value?
a. Stay with box A
b. Change to box C
c. Box A and C have the same odds of being right.
Regarding your first premise. Please tell me which socialistic country attracts innovators like Elon Musk or anyone like him. It is hard to refute the fact that he is the product of a meritocracy that is embraced and rewarded by a capitalist system not a socialist one. His genius is how to take his engineering skills and turn it into something that benefits society. His reward is making more money to do the same again and again as long as he works hard and continues to produce USABLE products that society values. The same can be said of Edison and others. Edison had created hundreds of trillions of dollars of value to the human race of which he, even at a billion dollars was only rewarded with a small portion of the wealth he created.
All citizens of this country are treated equally under the law. That doesn't mean that they all should be rewarded the same way. For the most part, in a capitalistic system they are rewarded by how much value they provide society. A good doctor provides more than most brick layers. Normally doctors are paid more than brick layers. They are both treated equally under the law but the law doesn't pay them for what they contribute to society.
Hi again, Greg.
"Here is a multiple-choice question that takes very little if any memorization skill and whole lot of analytical skills. The question goes like this.
"There are three boxes, A,B,and C of which only one has anything of value in it. Assume you pick box A as your best guess. Before revealing whether you are right or not I, knowing which box contains the something of value, truthfully told you box B does not have anything of value. Which of the following answers would provide the best chance of finding the thing of value?
a. Stay with box A
b. Change to box C
c. Box A and C have the same odds of being right. "
But here's the thing. This multiple choice question is not something to be found in a social studies or literature test, but is actually logic. Logic takes a high level of analytical skill, but its heavy use of numbers and variables makes it, as far as I and many others are concerned, a form of *math.* This is why you are partial to it, because it encompasses doing *math* in your head and being good at it -- which you are, and that's great, as I'm sure you make a good engineer, pilot, and math teacher as a result. I, however, was terrible when I took a course in logic, because working through equations and mathematical concepts in my head is not something I am good at. However, there are other ways of testing one's analytical skills that do not require the use of numbers and equations, but those involved in writing, research, and oratory discussion.
As I pointed out before, math is great for those who are good at it, but not for those who are not. Diversity is the rule of human skill sets, much like most everything else. No one who lacks these particular skills should be "left behind" or considered incompetent, let alone incapable of making major contributions to society that go beyond simply making money for either one's self or some big heartless corporation.
"Regarding your first premise. Please tell me which socialistic country attracts innovators like Elon Musk or anyone like him."
First off, there is no truly socialistic nation in the world as Marx and Engels formulated the term: a classless, moneyless, stateless and thus fully egalitarian society that expects contributions from everyone based on their specific abilities with full access to the social store in return. What you are referring to is either social democracy (i.e., liberal capitalism) or some variant of Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism (i.e., state-controlled autocracy).
Secondly, Musk is not attracted to America because it has the best scientists and engineers. He is attracted to it because it has the greatest potential to make *money* for him and to ensure that capitalist control of industries makes it to Mars and thus, the first human Martian colonies. And that is because American corporations exploit their workers more efficiently than any other nation. That is more about profit and practicality than superior innovation.
"It is hard to refute the fact that he is the product of a meritocracy that is embraced and rewarded by a capitalist system not a socialist one."
A "meritocracy" that lavishes a tiny percentage of people with vast access to the social wealth we collectively produce in a land of abundance while making it so that over 70% of hard workers have to struggle just to get by with wages that enables access to only a fraction of the value of what they produce (and could not handle even a $500.00 emergency), as well as consigning a large number of workers to being homeless and thereby wasting whatever skills sets they have is not a system of merit but an authoritarian plutocracy that lacks anything resembling compassion or equality. Musk has hundreds of employees working for him, and both he and they could have accomplished the same innovations in a genuinely socialist nation. However, in that case it would have been seen as a cooperative venture that was not dependent on money or the requirement of making a profit, but to enable all of humanity to benefit -- just as Musk and his employees benefit from the hard work people with other talent sets do in terms of providing food, medicine, infrastructure, entertainment, et al, for them.
"is genius is how to take his engineering skills and turn it into something that benefits society."
If you have the money to afford it, yes. But how many of us can currently afford his shuttle trips as a replacement for airplanes? Only a small fraction of the population can currently benefit from his innovations. Would Jeff Bezos have taken non-celebrities who lacked money and were not part of his elite social circus into space as he recently did William Shatner? Keep in mind that Bezos has nothing like Musk's engineering skills, but he had the money to hire those who do, to the point where he is now providing business competition for Musk and NASA. Musk making it "to the top" may have been more a result of his money and a lot of luck rather than superior brains and education.
If we had a classless and moneyless society, *all* of the world would be benefiting from the innovations stemming from those who work for Musk and Bezos (and NASA). Further, none of them would have had to worry about being "left behind" or "weeded out" of an education system that is every bit as callously competitive as the corporations it serves because there wasn't enough money in their hands, or because they could not pass a certain course in college that had nothing to do with engineering, or because they simply had their discoveries stolen from them because the corporation they worked for owned everything they created.
"His reward is making more money to do the same again and again as long as he works hard and continues to produce USABLE products that society values."
Except that all of his endeavors can only be about making a profit first and foremost, and the potential benefits of his company's innovations are limited to those who can pay, not everyone who would benefit. If he had lived in a socialist society, every engineer would have ample access to the resources requiring such innovations, and their reward would be the same as everyone else's who makes important contributions to society in every field: full access to the social store. They would not be demanding *power and privilege* over others, and would not expect more than economic security and having their full material needs and reasonable wants met. Moreover, if I had billions of dollars due to being born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I could create a rival company to Musk despite lacking his skills as an engineer by hiring engineers. I would then be raking in the profits from their work and designs, surely as both Musk (despite his skills) and Bezos are doing.
"The same can be said of Edison and others. Edison had created hundreds of trillions of dollars of value to the human race of which he, even at a billion dollars was only rewarded with a small portion of the wealth he created."
I'm glad that Edison had the skills he had. I am not sorry that he failed to acquire power and privilege over others as his "reward." I am sorry that he did not receive the full fruit of his labor, just like everyone else whose collective work helped support his life and work. Which includes us writers whose publications have served as the conscience of societies, and whose speculative fiction has inspired scientists and engineers to reach beyond the currently known and possible. I respect all talents and abilities, and feel each one should be rewarded for their work -- but not to vastly lesser or greater degrees of anyone else who contributes, regardless of how much a plutocracy "values" them.
"All citizens of this country are treated equally under the law."
That was the intention of the Founders, but that's not how it works in practice, Greg. If we had some type of legal squabble, those of us who could afford the best lawyers would have the advantage, especially if that one routinely walked in social circles where they were personal friends with judges and high-priced attorneys. That is also why the President and senators can routinely get away with crimes that would have you and me thrown into the slammer for life. The type of "meritocracy" you describe is about winners and losers, and producing a few winners that require millions of losers.
"That doesn't mean that they all should be rewarded the same way. For the most part, in a capitalistic system they are rewarded by how much value they provide society."
I think people who write inspiring books, brick layers who help in constructing the facilities we need, and who make and distribute food (to name but a few) make as big a contribution in their own way as doctors and scientists, who could not do their work without the latter people. No one actually needs or deserves more than the full fruit of their labor. In a system that runs on money -- which makes no sense in an industrially advanced world that can mass produce virtually everything we collectively need-- then those with the most of it will call the shots and literally write the laws that govern society, since their lobbyists would have most politicians beholden to them.
"They are both treated equally under the law but the law doesn't pay them for what they contribute to society."
Note what I said above. If you have a lot more money than someone else, the law is most definitely in your favor. That includes those who are the progeny of wealthy capitalists and "trust fund babies." That is why Hunter Biden, Trump's children, and Chelsea Clinton will have far more privilege and "merit" in the eyes of society than you and I, the billions of others in the world like us, no matter how hard we work and what we contribute compared to them.
The question only requires elementary school math. Like one out three is 1/3 and 2 out of three is 2/3. The hard part is logic. I did the question to illustrate that multiple choice questions can demand much more than memorization. By the way the correct answer to the question is b. Change to box C. Box C has a two out of three (2/.3) chance of being right.
Thankfully, most of us can handle elementary school math, i.e., general math, but those of us who lack natural skill at it have to work much harder to learn it than those born with a natural talent for math and mathematical thinking. The cut-off point will likely vary somewhat for those of us (like me) who suck at math; but in my case, I noticed that high school geometry was the point of no return, i.e., where I could not progress or learn any of it no matter how many hours I was kept after school, how many extra assignments I was expected to complete, how many tutors I had foisted onto me, or how severely I was punished by teachers and family alike for not learning it or getting the homework completed (and I was hit with plenty of each!). One very important thing required for such students are math teachers who have the combined traits of being very good at *teaching* (an art not all mathematicians are proficient at), very patient, and willing to honestly assess when a student is simply not talented enough at the topic to go any further (to her credit, my geometry teacher did at one point tell my mother that she felt bad for me, because I was obviously really trying despite not being able to grasp it). This means that not all math teachers (or teachers of *any* subject, for the same reasons) are suitable for all students who are taking on the topic. For instance, a teacher whose personal style of teaching and overall personality may be terrific for students who are good at math, but terrible for students who lack the natural talent to excel at the subject.
When I worked at my college as a writing and English tutor, I tried to help the many Freshman English students I had by advising them which of the English instructors I knew to be tolerant of those who were just not going to progress in that particular subject beyond the basics (that is, reasonably competent at writing instead of good) as opposed to those who would be "hard asses" about it (and I knew each of them well, as I was an English major enrolled in all of their advanced, sometimes graduate-level classes). Likewise, to pass Statistics, the sole math class I was required to get through as part of my core college courses, I was advised by a few math majors I knew as to which instructors to avoid taking that class with, and which would give me a break provided I worked extremely hard to the point of sweating blood and tears.
I do see what you mean by saying that multiple choice questions can entail more than just rote memorization, but as noted, logic requires a special type of analytical thinking that not every brain can process. It's also a rather unique subject unto itself, much like word problems, which I did well at in my general math classes because it required writing mini-stories or scenarios rather than just using numbers. There are, of course, alternate means of analytical thinking that people who lack the specialized mental processing skills of those with innate talent at math can call upon.
Thank you also for the answers to the questions you presented, and for your polite engagement with me despite our disagreements. It's clear that you really enjoy what you do, which is wonderful, and again, I never meant to imply that your specific talent set is not useful to society. Quite the contrary! I was simply arguing that all skills sets and talents are useful, and the lack of certain innate abilities or not being a "jack of all trades" does not mean that a person is bereft of being tremendously useful to society for the talents they *do* possess, not to mention those who make the most out of what level of intelligence they do have as opposed to obviously smarter people who choose not to their potential for whatever reason. This is why different methods of education are required to meet the needs of different students.
I listened to yesterday's Callin and found it pretty well balanced.
Matt's reporting on the topic seemed very good, much more in-depth than I have heard.
If you don't have a ton of time to devote to exhaustively following this story, I would say his treatment of the issue is comprehensive and pretty fair-minded, even though the case for greater equity in public school education should still always be sought, (if not to the exclusion of high standards)and the notion of racism having infiltrated institutions is pretty undeniable (though reversals have clearly taken place since the 1960s).
I do wish to dispute one caller's charge than Dr. Fauci's reversals on various recommendations show his unreliability. Rather, it's the virus that is unreliable, and unpredictable. Like all scientists should do, he seems to have always based his recommendations on what is known at the time, or at least what could be most reasonably assumed based on prior science.
We must remember that science is the sum of information which has not yet been proved wrong.
The thing about Fauci and his definition of "what is known", is that for new medications or treatments his definition is statistical evidence from double blind human trials. But for other things, his evidence is e.g., "It's common sense more masks will work better than one mask", even though a survey of Random Controlled Trials (RCT) (which include double blind human trials, but some trials can't be blind such as for masks because the patient knows what treatment cohort he's in if he's wearing a mask) on public mask usage doesn't show they reduce virus transmission.
You might say Fauci's definition of "what is known" is to support government and Big Pharma.
Yeah, another subscriber feature on the app I can't use. You need to lower subscription price for we non-Apple suicide net supporting folks. You not addressing this bullshit pisses me off, yet I still subscribe. Kind of like how both Dems and Republicans expect their supporters to always vote for them no matter how bad their candidate is. See Dementia Joe for reference. I am sure you don't give a shit about low income subscribers like me, plus I am a horrible boomer. Egads.
I wouldn't use it even if I could .. . was sitting in the loo @ 4pm ESt concentrating on doing my own business, Virg.
What I want, and what I shall insist upon btw, is a rapid, fast=paced 'news' environment that can act in real time response to the HUGE-shit-load of crap I read everyday in the 'news'papers. I am anxiously concerned.
Don't need no 'special features' and, as mentioned above, I'm way too busy to call it in. Can't wait all day either on deep dives into the rich&famous lovers in Va. (although there is nothing wrong with that.). .. by the time Matt gets done/through examining this phenomenon, GOPYoungkin and Va. will have seceded from the Union.
All I need is a wifi connection and a little spot to voice my objections. .. or approval.
*after all, Education is a two way street .. . and it always starts at home https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFR-20C-Lns
There is no such thing as an "extra feature." An app "in the works" does us no good at all. It shows arrogance on the part the person who offers such a limiting benefit and then does not respond to any criticism. I am sure he appreciates you running interference for him because he sure as hell won't do it for himself.
I heard the first 20-30 minutes, took a break. When it reloaded I was not able to get it to jump forward to the previous spot, it would only play from the beginning and I'm not willing to listen to the whole thing over again. I'm guessing this is an issue with the callin platform.
May I suggest you also put these out as a podcast, since those platforms will allow jumping around in the times. I usually listen on Podbean
What I did hear was great
Why do we have to listen to Paul whine on about San Francisco? I live here in the City & it's great! Fu*k Texas with its collapsing grid, no ACA, no abortions, & everyone is armed to the teeth.
Am I missing something? is there a discussion going on? I cant hear it.
You have to download the Callin app which free. It’s good, I just signed off.
Is the call accessible via a desktop machine, or is it necessary to use the app on a phone?
Mr. Taibbi, as a Marine, I'm anything but squeamish about foul language. However, if you think that using '**ssed' entices everyone in your audience to read something you've written, you're dead-**s wrong, sir. IMHO, you're also doing far more damage to the cause of Mr. Trump than you're helping it.
Look forward to joining as soon as it's available on Android.