Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Blaming the schools alone isn't legitimate, but they certainly have been a
significant contributor. Public schools long ago moved from a "personal
responsibility" to a "self-esteem" based approached that has been
disastrous and is a significant contributor to many of society's problems
today.

No longer can schools punish students as it is either illegal or will harm
the students' self-esteem.

I'm not sure if what you are saying is a deliberate concept of education, or
has become a part of education just has it become a way of our society.
Education does usually directly reflect our society's values and approaches
towards responsibility. I can't disagree with a lot of what you are
saying, just refute that it is being caused by education. It is a question
of cause or effect. School causing the problem, or schools exhibiting the
problem because of society? That is the question.

How I wish we could punish students appropriately. We are powerless, as
most avenues of punishment have been taken from us. In large part, much of
what IS wrong with schools have been imposed on them by -------. You fill
in the blank.

When a student fails a class, we blame everyone but the student and find a
way to move them along anyway.

Oh, we as teachers would love to keep them behind when they fail. They need
to be kept behind until they get it right, or reach a certain level of
competency, but someone else that "knows better" won't let that happen.

Speaking of such things, why are we letting kids that can't read, take other
classes that require reading? (like all of them) They should be kept in
concentrated reading until they can.

It is like keeping a student that can not land an airplane working on
circles around a point, or other maneuvers, then when they can do them,
signing them off to solo. They are not ready to solo, if they can't land,
right? COMMON SENSE ! It happens in education, though. They take science
classes that require math, when they can't add or multiply. They take
sociology, or history, when they can't read.

How about speaking English? We continue teaching (in English) and when they
go to do a worksheet or homework on what was talked about in class, we send
them to ESL English as a Second Language) tutors to help them with the work.
How can they know what the work is about, if they could not understand what
the teacher was saying?

This type of thing is what I find so frustrating about teaching. Teachers
usually know what is needed, but they can't make it happen. Students should
not be allowed to continue until they meet certain levels of competency.
You are right, that they are pushed along, but that is not teachers making
that happen.

I'm totally frustrated with many things in education, the way it is today.
I try to do the best , thing for the student, and try to overcome the
obsticals, and it is totally frustrating, some days. I would not reccomend
anyone to go into education, today. Teachers have their hands tied in too
many ways, and are treated with a lack of respect by some students, almost
daily. I wonder if it could be worth it, for anyone.

I know you have public school connections (your wife as I recall), but the
reality is that public schools HAVE contributed to this phenomenon of
sending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, messages that nothing is YOUR
fault it is the fault of the "system", and don't worry as the "system"
will take care of you anyway.

I don't see that as a message that is a direct result of education, but as a
result of how education has had their hands tied. The "system will take
care of you" is a direct observation of how society treats problems, and
people with problems, nowdays.

Also, I wanted to comment on "No Child Left Behind, and how that has been
such a total failure, and perhaps one of the very worst pieces of
legislation to ever hit the public schools.

All kids are not created equal, and can not possibly be treated the same, to
achieve to their maximum potential. It can't work. It doesn't work.

If the guberment would keep their hands off of educators, and let them do
what is needed (instead of passing more legislation mandating this and that)
perhaps you would see education improve. As it is, we are so busy trying to
meet one requirement or the other, that there is little time to teach.

Well, enough. I get tired of beating my head against the wall, talking
about this. I'll try real hard to be quiet, now! g
--
Jim in NC

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

You need to look at the specifics of the case. There is hot, and there
is HOT. She reasonably expected hot, but was served HOT.

Had she spilled hot coffee, she would have learned to be more careful,
but she would not have had extensive injuries. She spilled HOT coffee,
which caused extensive injuries.

The difference between hot and HOT was very significant in this
particular case. Just for jollies, you can test the concept yourself
with pool water. The difference between 79 degree water and 82 degree
water is surprisingly easy to tell. In the McD case, there was a TWENTY
degree difference, at a temperature in which single degrees cause much
greater increase in injury.

Further, McDonalds had been warned repeatedly (I think there had even
been prior incidents) that their coffee was TOO HOT and chose to serve
it that way anyway, knowing that it could easily cause unexpected
injuries. It could reasonably be argued that this hidden danger was
reckless disregard for human safety.

Since nobody likes lawyers and the problems they cause, it does make an
attractive flag to rally around ("stupid person spills coffee and blames
McD") because nobody can argue the opposite case without studying the
details.

Since there are so many stupid (IMHO) judgements, the good judgements
that look stupid on the surface get thrown into the same bin. And (lest
we tar lawyers unfairly for this), it is the job of the lawyer to be
persuasive - and the job of the other lawyer to do the same. The
JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge. (Sometimes a jury).

THAT is where the problem is.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
...

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING
HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding
levels.

Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was
*too*
effing hot.


I would be interested in knowing how much insulation the cup provided. If
it was paper then it couldn't have been to hot. If it was made of Shuttle
re-entry tiles then it probably was to hot.



Regardless of her initial award, does anyone know how much she actually
collected after appeal issues and such. I heard it was much less, but don't
recall the numbers. Maybe $200k.

Time out, sports fans.

Don't blame the schools.

Where are the parents????

Discipline-Yes, teachers would love to discipline the students. It has
been curtailed, mostly due to parents! ("How dare you discipline my
Johnny. He would never do that! If you touch my Johnny I'll sue you,
the district, the city, etc.")

Self Esteem-Parents again. (My Johnny is just as good as all these
other kids. I demand that he/she is captain of the team, gets to play
quarterback, sing the lead part, blah, blah, blah.)

Fault. Parents. (It's not Johnny's fault. He missed the test because
had to keep him out of school so we could go to Aunt Mabels. Johnny
couldn't do the assignment because he had to race in the skateboard finals.)

Move them along anyway. Parents. (You can't flunk my Johnny! I'll sue
you, the district, the city, the state.)

Teachers today spend countless hours substituting for parents (and
others) who think that the education system is responsible for every
facet of a student's life. Many of these kids come to class with no
manners, common sense, respect for authority, discipline, or basic
social skills.

Many of these kids also come from abusive, broken homes where the
parents have the same problems their kids have-brought on by their own
parents. In addition, many kids are coming from households where the
parents are too drunk, stoned, or not even there to care about their
kids. They're hungry, scared, defensive, and possibly already looking
out for themselves.

Self Esteem? When your own parents don't care or beat you, you do need
some self esteem.

All of these factors challenge our kids today.

But, it's the teachers fault if the kids don't learn.

Want to see the biggest problem in America's education system? Look in
the mirror.

Get involved with your kids. Get involved with your schools. Be part
of the solution. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and be a Monday
morning quarterback.

-end rant-

Al
1964 Skyhawk
Spokane, WA

kontiki wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:


No longer can schools punish students as it is either illegal or will
harm the students' self-esteem. When a student fails a class, we
blame everyone but the student and find a way to move them along
anyway. I know you have public school connections (your wife as I
recall), but the reality is that public schools HAVE contributed to
this phenomenon of sending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle,
messages that nothing is YOUR fault it is the fault of the "system",
and don't worry as the "system" will take care of you anyway.


I submit that this is to a significant degree due to the fact that
it is not taught or even encouraged in the current education system.
There are other factors of course, but I our education system is
probably the most important one. If someone is not educated enough
to recognize that a problem exists there can never be a solution.

On Dec 2, 3:12 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

Behavior is secondary to the inculcation of irrationality which breeds the
behavior pathologies. It is beyond two generation now, so Morgan's prattle
that parents being the cause is only partially correct...a very small part.- Hide quoted text -

MxMatt, someday I am going to try to actually make sense of one of
your posts . I think you use alot of big words to try to sound like
you know what you are talking about ( Cant blame ya, I like to sound
like this too). Your talk of education reminds me of the thread about
airline labor where you made sweeping blanket statements about unions
but you didnt have a basic grasp of the Railway Labor Act. Your posts
about flying are even worse
I have volunteered at my kids schools for years . I was impressed by
how hard most of these people work ( and for a fraction of the $$$
most of us make. I have seen them cussed out by students and parents,
some of whom never spend any time personally fostering thier kids
education. Instead of pointing uot the systems faults (And your silly
views of what caused them, why dont you roll up your sleeves and
volunteer.
FB

On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

I remember when they gave teachers the same tests they were giving their
students, the teachers failed...miserablly.

Yea right. How well could YOU do on these tests.

I have, though, been to my kids school to ask the teacher why a science
question was a single sentence 115 worlds long, and why a friend of our,
with an MS degree from Princeton, could not figure out the problem.

I saw this one on TV. The show was called "Are You Smarter Than a
Fifth Grader. I have the home version. Its fun!

That's just ONE instance.

Dedication is nice, but that's about all - it will not give students even an
ounce of knowledge or ability to comprehend the world.

FB

On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;

To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
(But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
interesting.
FB

--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:


So what is your beef, then?


With people who forget that education is a partnership bewteen a
school and the parent.

don't forget the student.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
Lawyers are, by their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think
they can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been
"harmed" to a proper extent?

Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.



I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH
times!

So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))

And now you know why so many stopped calling it the "Justice System" and
now refer to it as the "Legal System". It's all in "gaming the system".



Actually I've known this for a VERY long time :-)))

Quite!
The rest, the sheeple, are a few decades behind.

F. Baum wrote:
On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;

To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
(But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
interesting.
FB
--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It's true the issue is quite complex and as such assigning it a single
failure statement might be excessive.
I spent considerable time involved with flight safety issues including
active accident investigation. I've been exposed to a fairly wide
spectrum of these issues myself.
This being said, I believe I understand your point clearly and accept
some compromise on basic premise.
I am still left with the basic study of the litigation equation that
states several initiation assumptions;

The plaintiff can seek a law suit but no suit can occur without a lawyer.
This scenario can be either ethical or unethical, but if unethical, the
responsibility lies with the lawyer as by simple deduction, the
unethical suit can and should be refused by the lawyer regardless of the
insistence or incentive of the prospective client.

And this just covers the scenario where the plaintiff makes the initial
contact.

Now considering the second alternative; that being the lawyer actively
seeking a plaintiff and we have an unethical scenario by definition.
Lawyers seeking litigation are initiating or attempting to initiate an
action that requires a plaintiff. In seeking that plaintiff, I see a
clear violation of ethical standard.

Now take the worst case scenario, which by mere chance I am witnessing
tonight as we speak.
I just finished listening to a radio commercial where an attorney is
advertising for people to "become familiar" with a fact that "the credit
card companies don't want you to know"; that fact being that you can pay
the credit card company much LESS than you actually owe them with no
penalty. This attorney is actively seeking clients to defraud a credit
card company while making a fee for the service.
This type of lawyer advertising should be illegal but is allowed under
laws passed by the same lawyers doing the solicitation.
This behavior is well beyond the pail and is wide spread in the legal
community.
To me at least, it is THIS type of activity by the legal profession that
has taken the justice out of the system and replaced it with nothing
more or less than a pure legally sponsored money making machine.


--
Dudley Henriques