Al Gore's Private Jet

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

In that case, what would be government's role?


Provide and maintain a navy, raise and support an army, coin money, fix
standard weights and measures, establish uniform rules of naturalization,
secure patents and copyrights, establish post offices and post roads, punish
piracies and felonies committed on the high seas against international law,
and to make all laws necessary for carrying out those roles.

Jose wrote:
We removed from the schools morality (prayer)

Prayer != morality, and does not belong in the schools. The Taliban has
prayer in their schools.

True, I was referring to the morality that existed in the US up until
the 60s, not the Taliban. What a dumb comparison and you know it.

Matt

kontiki wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
We removed from the schools morality
(prayer), any semblance of discipline (no spanking), any form of
personal accountability (might damage their self-esteem if you give
them a D), etc., and now we are wondering why we're in the state we're
in.


The real problem wasn't prayer (or the lack of it) it was the
year by year increased meddling by the federal government into
something they have no business meddling in... education.


Yes, that is very true.

Matt

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:22:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Today the government is funding a half billion dollars over five years
for research into the cause of childhood obesity while only 25% of
school children attend physical education classes.

It's because they eat too much and aren't active enough. I'd have happily
told the government that for far less than half a billion dollars.

You forgot to mention the fast food enterprises infiltrating the
campuses.

Ah, another person who doesn't understand personal accountability. Did
you attend public school in the 70s or 80s?

Matt

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:48:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
The influence of big corporations on government policy is appalling.

If the government stopped setting policy big corporations would stop seeking
to influence them.


In that case, what would be government's role?

National defense, interstate commerce, interstate transportation and
foreign policy. Most everything else is just harmful meddling.

Matt

Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

Unfortunately, it was the changed schools of the 70s and 80s that gave us
the parents of the 90s and now. We removed from the schools morality
(prayer), any semblance of discipline (no spanking), any form of personal
accountability (might damage their self-esteem if you give them a D),
etc., and now we are wondering why we're in the state we're in. This isn't
rocket science folks. The outcome of the policy changes in the public
schools and society in general in the 60s through the 80s was pretty
predictable.

BACK UP, A MINUTE ! ! !

Not one thing above was a change instituted by the schools. NOT ONE ! ! !

Lawyers, lawsuits, government rulings and impositions on schools, each and
every one.

You back up and read what I wrote. I never once said that the schools
instigated the changes, I said the schools were changed. I wish schools
would go back to teaching reading comprehension.

Matt

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:18:12 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in :

You want changes from the schools? Change parents, first.

When mothers abandoned their traditional role of raising their
children, children ceased to be civilized. But out nation was more
competitive in the global marketplace. Now the majority of US
households are headed by a single parent who must not only earn enough
to live, but do all the parenting, house work, cooking, etc.... That
is what must be changed about parenting.

Without that, no amount of money or effort will make a difference.

I disagree. If sufficient government funding were provided to reduce
class size to one teacher per student, there would be a very
significant change in the quality of student achievement in this
country. Do you disagree?

Ah, home schooling! Yes, this is very effective and should be encouraged!!

Matt

On Apr 6, 1:36 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:03:05 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

I think air travelers were better off before airline deregulation.
Passengers had more room. Stews were younger. Food was better than
today. ...

Weren't prices higher?

I don't know.

If ticket prices were higher than today, it would be interesting to
know how much more we had to pay back then for the excellent service
airline passengers enjoyed under government regulation.

You mean "the excellent service airline passengers were required by
law to purchase under gov regulation". You can buy the same service
now, the only difference is you also have a discount alternative.

-robrt

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:38:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Are you able to provide examples that support that assertion?

"Although it is popular to claim that smaller class size leads to better
learning, especially in our public schools, I'm not aware of any empirical
data to support this claim. In the US, the average class size in our public
schools is 30, whereas in Japan it is 45--yet Japanese students have
outperformed American students for decades. With regard to freshman
composition, I know of only one published empirical study (Feldman, 1984,
Class size and college students' evaluation of teachers and courses,
Research in Higher Education, 20, 45-116), but it does not address the issue
of class size and performance. There may be others, but if so, they are not
well known. Given the number of variables associated with student
performance--motivation, previous training, students' sex, SES, teacher
expectations, teacher training and methodology, reading ability,
intelligence, etc.--I'm not sure how one could go about even researching
this question in a way that would control all the variables. Having stated
what may be obvious, I would note that much anecdotal evidence supports the
view that effective composition instruction entails establishing a mentoring
apprenticeship with students. If this view is correct, and I believe it is,
then the "ideal" class size would be much smaller than 12. In fact, a
composition teacher would never have more than 4 or 5 students per year."

http://www.wpacouncil.org/node/580


If it is indeed true, to what do you attribute the success of those
schools with greater class sizes in producing high student
achievement?

"Japanese teachers believe that large classes are better than small ones
because they encourage peer relationships and interaction. They also lower
the salience of the teacher as the focus of the students' attention."

"Learning to go to school in Japan." - page 56, Lois Peak, University of
California Press


That is indeed interesting information of which I was completely
unaware.

My personal observation of Los Angeles area high school classes in the
mid '80s (incidental to work I was performing in the classrooms
throughout the school), ranged from the teachers being overloaded at
times to the point of not being able to address the needs of all the
kids, to the teachers being completely overwhelmed by obstreperous
students who paid little to no attention to the lessons the teachers
were attempting teach. I recall one typing class where there were
three or four students huddled around the teacher while the rest of
them indulged in boisterous, disruptive behavior. It was shocking to
witness. I don't recall a single class of calm students intent upon
learning. At the time, I attributed the joke that passed for
education to the teachers being out numbered. Perhaps I was wrong.

Thanks for the information.




Now if you'll study up on global warming we can get you straight there
as well. :-)

Matt

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:49:10 GMT, "flynrider via AviationKB.com"
u32749@uwe wrote in 7050f9c234ea4@uwe:

Larry Dighera wrote:
The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.

You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?

Do you normally "inform yourself" at the movies?

I find many documentaries to be highly informative, as apparently do
you.

I've seen Gore's movie
and found it short on actual science and long on sensationalism. Pretty
charts and graphs do not equal science.

So what of the photographic evidence presented in Gore's documentary?
Do you find that suspect as well?

Have you seen the BBC's documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming
Swindle"?

I was unaware of it. A search of the DirecTV program guide and
Internet Movie Database did not find it either.


http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/search...questid=512253
http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=The...arming+swindle

However, there is information about "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle
Viewpoints expressed in the film
The film's basic premises are that the current state of knowledge
on global warming has numerous flaws, and that vested interests in
science and the media discourage the public and the scientific
community from acknowledging this. It argues against the consensus
scientific opinion on climate change that human activity is the
primary cause of global warming (as supported by the scientific
academies of the major industrialized nations[3] and other
professional scientific bodies). The film explains the apparent
scientific consensus as the product of a "global warming industry"
driven by a desire for research funding. Another target is Western
environmentalists who, the film claims, promote expensive solar
power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, holding Africa back from
industrializing.

Some of the people who are interviewed in the film are
environmentalist Patrick Moore, co-founder, but for the past 21
years a critic, of Greenpeace; Richard Lindzen, professor of
meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick
Michaels, professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of
Virginia; Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist; John
Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center
at University of Alabama; and Paul Reiter of the Pasteur
Institute. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but
has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's
conclusions and the way his interview material was used.



http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html
THE PROGRAMME
THE ARGUMENTS
WATCH TRAILER
ASK OUR EXPERT
Ask Your Question
The Expert
VOTE
FIND OUT MORE
PLAY QUIZ
GLOBAL WARMING
THE ENVIRONMENT
BACK TO THE FUTURE
POLITICS OF CARBON
GREEN TECHNOLOGY
NUCLEAR POWER
FORUM


It features many reputable scientists (that don't get paid by oil
companies), and provides an insightful review of Gores charts and graphs by
actual climatologists. They point out that the man-caused theory of global
warming only works if you ignore the historical climate data that does not
fit the model.

I highly recommend it.


I would like to see it. Thanks.

However, it is immaterial to me whether man-made C02 is the root cause
of climate change or not. Regardless of the cause, it's going to be a
different planet if global warming continues.