Is there a transcript available?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Doesn't the two-tiered system in the military already make this point?
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
From the video:
quote: You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.
That seems like a very odd thing to say. Almost everyone in the military has a high school diploma. Many (almost all officers and a number of enlisted) have college degrees.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What a terrible thing to say.
...didn't he go to Vietnam? From which you could get a deferrment if you were in college? That's why my dad didn't have to go.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think I've been desensitized, but it didn't seem all that bad. :shrug:
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
katharina,
quote: That's why my dad didn't have to go.
Isn't that his point?
We can talk all we want about our model soldier who turned down Yale to go to Annapolis, but if you go to Iraq and pluck a random soldier, I doubt he'll pride himself on having studied hard, done his homework, and made an effort to be smart. I'm guess that the twenty-one year old in Iraq does not read and think at the same level as the twenty-old year in college. And if he does, then what's everyone doing wasting their time in school.
Maybe it's because I'm one of those guys who actually think that college means something, and being troop means something too, I just don't confuse the two.
I know. I know. Support the troops yadda yadda, even if the culture produces well-shaven order-following jarhead pre-company men.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But he went. So, is he characterizing himself as one of the people who didn't "make an effort to be smart"?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miro: That seems like a very odd thing to say. Almost everyone in the military has a high school diploma. Many (almost all officers and a number of enlisted) have college degrees.
I don't doubt most of these soldiers are more intelligent then many back home, but having a college degree (let alone a high school diploma) really doesn't mean much anymore. I know a genius who never graduated high school, and many idiots with college diplomas. I think these days a well trained monkey could work the system and make it through certain colleges.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Kerry is not saying that if you are a soldier then you uneducated. Rather he is suggesting that if you are uneducated you will be stuck as a soldier, whether you want to or not. There is a difference.
The implication is that we preying upon the uneducated and forcing them to be soldiers, while giving the educated a choice.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:But he went. So, is he characterizing himself as one of the people who didn't "make an effort to be smart"?
I took it as Kerry being honest about the military and why people join up. It's a steady job in a controlled environment, kind of like prison for non-offenders or school for those who aren't academically inclined. Take it as you will.
Castigate Kerry all you want, he was a trooper, now he is in charge of sending troopers. I think if more elected officials spoke with this candor, we'd have both a better military and a better civilian authority. I also think that people who penalize him for speaking his informed, truthful opinion just because it is unpopular, or may hurt some troopers feelings, are a shame.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:But he went. So, is he characterizing himself as one of the people who didn't "make an effort to be smart"?
He was clearly not as smart as Bush. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:I doubt he'll pride himself on having studied hard, done his homework, and made an effort to be smart. I'm guess that the twenty-one year old in Iraq does not read and think at the same level as the twenty-old year in college. And if he does, then what's everyone doing wasting their time in school.
quote: It's a steady job in a controlled environment, kind of like prison for non-offenders or school for those who aren't academically inclined. Take it as you will.
quote: I know. I know. Support the troops yadda yadda, even if the culture produces well-shaven order-following jarhead pre-company men.
This is what you believe? This is your opinion of college vs military? That the military is just filled with uneducated brainwashed zombies who are basically in prison because they are too stupid to do anything else? College students are smart because they are in college? You might want to expand your horizons a bit before making such bold statements. I will say that you could be attempting to use some sort of reverse psychology here to make a point of some kind, or at least that is my hope.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ya, I can't get worked up about this either.
I'm out of scandal outrage...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It also ignores the people who join the military precisely because it provides money for college.
I think the comment seems out of touch because it assumes that going to college is within everyone's means and going the military is the lazy way. That's not true.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
I think this is an example of there being more subtlety behind what he's saying than people see at first glance, as Tresopax pointed out. The military very probably has the highest concentration of intelligence in the country, even if the average soldier isn't a genius, and I imagine Kerry's aware of that.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Miro: That seems like a very odd thing to say. Almost everyone in the military has a high school diploma. Many (almost all officers and a number of enlisted) have college degrees.
I don't doubt most of these soldiers are more intelligent then many back home, but having a college degree (let alone a high school diploma) really doesn't mean much anymore. I know a genius who never graduated high school, and many idiots with college diplomas. I think these days a well trained monkey could work the system and make it through certain colleges.
I wasn't trying to say anything about intelligence. Kerry was talking about education, schooling. That's what I was responding to. In order to be in the military in the first place, you have pass some basic educational hurdles.
Really, this is just a couple lines from a speech. Completely out of context. While I disagree with the sentiment, I would hesitate to read too much into it without further information.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:That the military is just filled with uneducated brainwashed zombies who are basically in prison because they are too stupid to do anything else? College students are smart because they are in college?
Military or college, I look down on most people. In the military, I get the sense the soldiers are morally unappealing because of the institution. In college, I get the sense that students are morally unappealing in spite of the institution. Neither class of institutions is comprised of bottom feeders and both produce passable citizens, but with colleges, I have hope for something more than passable.
I freely admit to being a snob. When I hear:
quote:Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.
I think there are more important things than victory in war, and there are miles of difference between my opinion and the sentiment expressed above.
[ October 31, 2006, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I wasn't trying to say anything about intelligence. Kerry was talking about education, schooling. That's what I was responding to. In order to be in the military in the first place, you have pass some basic educational hurdles.
Really, this is just a couple lines from a speech. Completely out of context. While I disagree with the sentiment, I would hesitate to read too much into it without further information.
To be fair though, the military has recently loosened a lot of the standards for being accepted.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
True, the Army has made it easier for people with GEDs (instead of a high school diploma) to enlist.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
This, I think above everything else, is why I can never be a Democrat: the only genuine emotion they seem to be capable of is condescension.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is not exactly on topic, but I heard an interesting segment on NPR...a week or two ago. It was a brief (minute or so) interview...maybe it was This I Believe...from a soldier who was both a college graduate-Yale, I believe-and an active-duty soldier in Iraq. I may be getting some of the specifics wrong.
Anyway, the gist of his words was that for all the talk many left-leaning Americans like to make about how "only the poor, uneducated people serve in the military"-a claim which, if changed to 'mostly poor, and less well-educated than many others", is pretty true-the reason it was true was that, in fact, elite college-bound upper-class people don't volunteer to serve in the military anyway.
It was a different way for me to think of that particular observation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:This, I think above everything else, is why I can never be a Democrat: the only genuine emotion they seem to be capable of is condescension.
Whereas you are doing a splendid job of demonstrating bigotry.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Anyway, the gist of his words was that for all the talk many left-leaning Americans like to make about how "only the poor, uneducated people serve in the military"-a claim which, if changed to 'mostly poor, and less well-educated than many others", is pretty true-the reason it was true was that, in fact, elite college-bound upper-class people don't volunteer to serve in the military anyway.
I agree, and I actually believe that this is a fine departure point for a worthwhile discussion.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
While I get Kerry's point, I think he made an unfortunate choice of examples for it. Worst of all, when the White House called him on it he reacted not by clarifying his position -- calmly, maybe with a little humor and some digs at Bush's education policies -- but by lashing out at all Republicans.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I understood the statement the same way as Tresopax. I mean, Kerry isn't the first to point out that military is seeking out the lower-class and those without goals for future schooling (whether for lack of discipline or lack of funds.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Anyway, the gist of his words was that for all the talk many left-leaning Americans like to make about how "only the poor, uneducated people serve in the military"-a claim which, if changed to 'mostly poor, and less well-educated than many others", is pretty true-the reason it was true was that, in fact, elite college-bound upper-class people don't volunteer to serve in the military anyway.
That's not entirely true. People from a particular background don't often volunteer for the military. People from this background also make up a large percentage of the elite college bound upper class, but it's not like the less intelligent kids from this class are filling the ranks either. Consider how many children of Congressmen and Senators are in the military, for example, or think of what our current President did during Vietnam.
Whereas, I'm the only one out of my parents' three children not working for the military, with a brother who went through one of the academies and a sister who has a masters working for the Air Force. I considered joing up at one point, but I'm not tempermentally suited for it and I think I can do more good outside of it.
I don't think it's a matter of those elite college educated people not volunteering so much as it is a class thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I don't think it's a matter of those elite college educated people not volunteering so much as it is a class thing.
Wouldn't 'elite college-educated people' make up a big chunk of the upper-class of the United States, though?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Yes, I said as much in my post. I also went on to explain that I think the causal factor was more on class than on elite college educated people, because it's not like the people from that class who don't go to elite colleges are volunteering for the military, whereas, in my experience, people from a different class background who go to elite colleges are volunteering or have people close to them and members of their family volunteering.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Ohhhhh, who to nitpick first. This seems to be my problem right now. As I am seeing it, I am an unedikaded idiot who is poe wite trash. Irami, that is what I am getting from you. You can freely admit to being a snob all you want. I doesn't make you correct. In fact I know a few hundred people that I have either worked with, or had work for me, that would love to tell you different on issues. Do you honestly believe that you are better than everyone else?
As far as the white collar baloney being talked about: I have worked with many an individual who had nothing to worry about when he or she got out. Their family was loaded, and they had a secure position when they went back home. I know some have mentioned something along this point, this was not directed at you.
As much as I didn't have the on hand money to go to college, I did have scholarships I could have used. However, back in 1998, I made the choice to join. Last summer I decided that I wanted to re-enlist (this was my 2nd re-enlistment). So what does anyone have to say on that? Hopefully nothing, because I really don't care. I run my life as I want. You can claim that the President and a whole mess of politicians do, but as I see it, I could have decided not to re-enlist. I have my reasons. The last I checked I don't even have to explain them. I have that freedom.
I don't like Kerry. I think he's a chump. If he would just shut his mouth, a whole lot of things in life would be easier. Like, I could relax for a bit longer without having to get upset because someone decided to sound like an idiot. I wonder if he knows that a college education is a big push to get done while IN THE MILITARY!?!?!?
In fact, the military pretty much pays for it all. They have 100% tuition assistance. All you have to do is buy the necessary material. If you work it like me, you find a college that buys your books for you. All I have to do is buy paper, pens, pencils, and any other small items. Want to call me stupid now? I'm not the one suffereing with college loans. I don't even think that those that do suffer from college loans are stupid. Those things are just a fact of life these days.
If my morality is so messed up Irami, why is it that when my sister calls for help, I send it faster than anyone else? If she needs money, I send it. If she needs help on school work, I tell her where the book is that can help her (my library is packed away), or I give it to her myself. Oh, I must be the devil for doing so. I must be evil incarnate to even think of treating my best friend's sister as my own little sister as well. Look, my morality is just going down the drain. Get over yourself.
If I have upset anyone, besides Irami, I apologize. I have had other issues of this sort to deal with today. I just don't have the patience I normally do right now. Oh, the misspelling in the first part of my post is meant to be that way.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: He then said: "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.
"If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
A Kerry aide told CNN that the prepared statement, which had been designed to criticize President Bush, "was mangled in delivery."
Kerry was supposed to say, "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."
The latter section sounds like a politician I'd be proud to vote for.
Stan,
We'll just have to disagree about the worth of the moral values espoused and acted upon in our American military.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, even with the little bit we saw, it wasn't like John Kerry was saying that everyone in the military was uneducated. Rather that people who don't apply themselves with the learning are going to end up stuck in Iraq, presumably because they have no other choices.
At times, Senator Kerry seems as disposed to saying things stupidly as his ex-opponent. In this case, I'm sure that what he said sounded bad and I'm not at all convinced that the underlying message that he wanted to convey wasn't bad either. But, look at it this was, there's very little time left for the Democrats to screw things up and hand the election over to the Republicans. They've got to cram in as much as they can into two short weeks.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That actually makes a lot more sense, Irami.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
It's called covering their butts for what was said, Irami. It was a written speech. If he flubbed the joke, then he can't read himself. Even an educated person could have gotten us into this war.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That DOES sound more like Kerry, doesn't it? Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I'm not saying he can't read. However, he has had more than enough practice standing up and giving speeches. He can't use nervousness as an excuse. There is a lot of planning and setup for a speech. I don't believe it was a flubbed joke. Even then, the joke wasn't even funny.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
That quote was taken out of context.
And isn't one of the criticisms of the military that it is populated by the poor and underprivileged?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Even an educated person could have gotten us into this war.
Getting in wasn't the problem, getting out was the ticklish part.
Similarly but as an aside, I have mixed experiences with elected offices, but getting in has always been the easy part. The wisdom and planning comes in how you conduct yourself when you are there. I imagine the same can be said of parenthood.
[ October 31, 2006, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote: He then said: "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.
"If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
A Kerry aide told CNN that the prepared statement, which had been designed to criticize President Bush, "was mangled in delivery."
Kerry was supposed to say, "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."
The latter section sounds like a politician I'd be proud to vote for.
Stan,
We'll just have to disagree about the worth of the moral values espoused and acted upon in our American military.
This is exactly what I thought when I first read the quote. I thought it was a dig at the President and his supposed lack of academic and intellectual ability. After reading the discussion aboe you all had me second guessing myself.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
((Telp)), you know I don't mean any harm against you. The military is made up off people from all walks of life. We come from every corner of society. Besides, who could blame a poor (subjective) person for joining? We did the math with all the pay as nukes for a 40 hour week. It came out to about 20 bucks an hour. Not too bad. There's a lot of things that get put in it though. Such as free medical and dental. Of course we are also the ones who get the most taxes pulled out of our checks, but it comes back in a tax return.
So yes, it is a criticism that we deal with. However, most of us just ignore it. It's not worth our time. We have much better things to do with our time.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I've noticed that a BUNCH of people, especially in the Army, are just plain dumb. Most of them end up in the Army infantry, because the scores necessary for that job are lower than all the others. They call 'em "grunts" for a reason. But they can't ALL be dumb and poor. Just most of them.
So I don't think that Johnny Horseface was wrong so much as he was being rude. You don't call a stupid person stupid, especially if the stupid people you're talking about are being told they're taking bullets to protect your smart @$$.
Stan, you're not fighting in Iraq, and Irami obviously hasn't had much contact with the military of today. So you shouldn't take this cr@p personally, and he(?) should stick to topics he(?)'s more familiar with.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Kerry's office has a, well, not rebuttal, but something about this:
At the moment, airmanfour, you are right. I am not fighting over there. I was already in the Middle East area when this all happened. I do have friends out there. The Army wasn't specifically pointed out for what I was posting on. Although, with some inner defense department chiding, yes, there are some dumb ones in the Army. My cousin not being one of them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:...didn't he go to Vietnam? From which you could get a deferrment if you were in college? That's why my dad didn't have to go.
Not by the time my dad and his little brother were of age to be drafted. My dad got one for being pre-med and going to med school, but that was one of the only deferments available at the time, and I think if you were granted a deferment on that basis, they could call you back up as soon as you graduated and draft you to do doctor stuff.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh dear.
Just the wrong thing to say a week before midterms. Though I wonder about a voter who will take what KERRY said and decide not to vote for OTHER Democrats because of it. Talk about ridiculous.
I personally think he was referring to Bush, and not calling soldiers stupid. Politicians, by and large, can act stupid, but they are all smart enough to know that dissing the military in this day and age, regardless of reality or truth, is a no no. Kerry especially, after ALL the hoohah he made about Bush and his own military record I can't imagine would be stupid enough to openly mock the military.
I think it was a Bush diss, that was taken the wrong way.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Politicians, by and large, can act stupid, but they are all smart enough to know that dissing the military in this day and age, regardless of reality or truth, is a no no.
See, that's the attitude I find condescending.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Though I wonder about a voter who will take what KERRY said and decide not to vote for OTHER Democrats because of it. Talk about ridiculous.
Hehe...makes me wonder about them too. However, I'm sure there's plenty of people who won't vote for the Republican in their district because of Foley's actions or Bush's words, so Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Politicians, by and large, can act stupid, but they are all smart enough to know that dissing the military in this day and age, regardless of reality or truth, is a no no.
See, that's the attitude I find condescending.
What, mine? Or the politician's?
quote:Hehe...makes me wonder about them too. However, I'm sure there's plenty of people who won't vote for the Republican in their district because of Foley's actions or Bush's words, so
The only reason I can see that making sense is if their congressman knew about the scandal and were part of a coverup, in which case I think they have just grounds to consider that in who they vote for. Just as support for President Bush means that when Bush does and says stupid things, I think that should count against his supporters as well.
But when Santorum made that stupid Mordor reference about Iraq, I think it would be stupid to hold that against the entire party. I feel the same way about Kerry's gaffe, and any other politician who makes a comment independent of the rest of the party.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Hehe...makes me wonder about them too. However, I'm sure there's plenty of people who won't vote for the Republican in their district because of Foley's actions or Bush's words, so
The idea isn't entirely ridiculous. A politician has more power, and therefore a greater ability to do good/harm, when his/her party is in power.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Huh boy. Way to shoot your party in the foot, Mr. Kerry.
I think Kerry is being honest when he describes his comments as a "botched joke" at the President's expense. Heck, if he had any sense of comedic timing whatsoever, this thread would've been started by a liberal and titled "Where was this Kerry in '04?!" But regardless of his intentions, this incident is going to be trumpeted up, down and sideways by the Republicans, and I can't even blame them for jumping on it. With a gaffe this obvious, they'd be the worst politicians of all time NOT to wring it for all they can get.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This controversy is downright goofy... (not unlike several others that have come up recently - "Macaca" anyone?) It is bad enough that people try to judge candidates based on single soundbites. But it is a truly sad state of affairs when it is considered acceptable and expected for candidates to be judged based on obvious misinterpretations of what those soundbites were trying to convey.
Does anyone seriously believe that Kerry, a decorated veteran, actually intended to suggest that our soldiers were all uneducated? Does anyone seriously think that was the message he was trying to convey to Americans a week before the elections?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I used to be in the camp that would have frowned about someone enlisting in the military and saying something condescending like, "Oh, what a waste."
Then I started dating someone in the military and started to understand that things aren't quite so cut and dry. Now I see it as one option among many - and for some, it's a valuable option to have. You can do things in the military that aren't available anywhere else: Fly jets, for example, or work on a nuclear submarine, or crack foreign code.
This discussion of the military is based on an outdated perception of military-as-infantry: a bunch of uneducated jarheads who only know how to kill people.
There are exceptions to every rule: Abu Ghraib is a great example of some uneducated, inhuman beings in the Armed Forces.
But educated professions have dishonorable members, too - the Jack Kelleys and the Jayson Blairs of the news business, the Ken Lays of big business, and don't even get me started on the William Jeffersons and Jack Abramoffs of politics.
The military does not have a monopoly on stupidity.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I am in the Army.. I received a 99 on the ASVAB, and 1970 on the SAT, and am taking multiple advanced college classes, and I am in high school. Um, I am not uneducated. and all the military NCOs and COs I have met so far are not uneducated.
By the way, if Kerry mangled that statement so horribly, it is even more reason that I don't like him, because many of the "anti-Bush"ers claim Bush is an idiot because of pronunciations like "Nucular".
Ha.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Does anyone seriously believe that Kerry, a decorated veteran, actually intended to suggest that our soldiers were all uneducated?
No. But I do think it's quite possible that he looks down on enlisted men in today's armed forces and thinks he's better than them. Just because he served decades ago doesn't mean that he is in tune with what today's military man is like. He's not a military man anymore, he's a career politician - he's highly educated and extremely wealthy and while being those two things doesn't automatically mean he looks at enlisted men as "beneath him" I'm not going to dismiss the possibility that he does indeed feel that way just because he once served himself.
I don't see why he is so resistant to apologizing. It's almost as if he's conflated apologizing about the remark to apologizing to Bush - and that's not what is going on here. The implied insult was not to Bush, it was to the men and women serving in Iraq. He should apologize to them, even if he didn't mean the remark to come out the way it did. Instead he stomped his foot, yelled about the evil Republicans and said he refuses to apologize. That makes him look childish.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Though I wonder about a voter who will take what KERRY said and decide not to vote for OTHER Democrats because of it. Talk about ridiculous.
Hehe...makes me wonder about them too. However, I'm sure there's plenty of people who won't vote for the Republican in their district because of Foley's actions or Bush's words, so
I don't think that two are at all comparable. As much as we think we vote for individuals in this country, we can be certain that our vote will also support a party.
If one is upset not solely about what Foley did, but also about how the republican leadership handled the issue, then it would be logical to vote against any republican house candidate to try to oust the republican leadership.
Similarly, if one is upset about Bush's policies one might want to see the republicans loose their majority in congress because a congress led by democrats is more likely to oppose administration policy.
On the other hand, there is much less rational justification for voting against a democrat in CA because you don't like statements made by a Senator from MA.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I was willing to seriously believe that Kerry meant to say that our soldiers were (not all, but largely) in the military because they were poor and uneducated, because that's a standard Democrat talking point now. But I'm also willing to believe it was a stumbling over words.
If so, his handling of it is monstrously bad. He insists he will make "no apology" for what he said about our soldiers (intentionally or not). An apology would be easy enough.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm a little surprised he didn't say "To the troops, I hope you know I wasn't referring to you, and sorry if you think I was, but this is what I really meant..."
But I understand a bit, not wanting to apologize when you didn't do anything wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I was willing to seriously believe that Kerry meant to say that our soldiers were (not all, but largely) in the military because they were poor and uneducated, because that's a standard Democrat talking point now. But I'm also willing to believe it was a stumbling over words.
If so, his handling of it is monstrously bad. He insists he will make "no apology" for what he said about our soldiers (intentionally or not). An apology would be easy enough.
Woah, since when is that one of our talking points? Was I not at the meeting where this was discussed?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I received a 99 on the ASVAB, and 1970 on the SAT, and am taking multiple advanced college classes, and I am in high school.
It's not out of 1600 anymore?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
He means in the "we are letting poor people fight our wars" talking-point sense. I think Kerry just added uneducated.
From a purely political perspective, the Dems better shove Kerry's foot so far back into his mouth he can't open it again for the next ten days.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Irami - No, it's out of 2200 since they added the writing section, also worth 800.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I received a 99 on the ASVAB, and 1970 on the SAT, and am taking multiple advanced college classes, and I am in high school.
It's not out of 1600 anymore?
Nope. Three parts now, for a total of 2400.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
A writing section? *laughs* Myabe I'm cynical, but I think that's because too many immigrants were scoring too high.
quote:From a purely political perspective, the Dems better shove Kerry's foot so far back into his mouth he can't open it again for the next ten days.
See, I don't like how "political" has come to mean "strategic."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The writing section is not really new. It's just the old TSWE, slightly revamped, and included as part of the SAT instead of a separate number.
Regardless, AFAIK, most colleges are just looking at the first two parts. Until we have several years' of data (at least five), I wouldn't expect that to change.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: A writing section? *laughs* Myabe I'm cynical, but I think that's because too many immigrants were scoring too high.
Actually I think it's because so damned many kids are entering college now with no writing skills, and profs are sick and tired of teaching high school English to a generation that should have learned it two or three years prior.
To say nothing of the fact that your life shouldn't be wholly determined by either a writing test OR a multiple choice test.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Whoops, I can't add. 2400. (Now everyone can see why I went into journalism instead of engineering...)
And yeah, really "political communication" and "strategic communication" have become interchangeable phrases.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:To say nothing of the fact that your life shouldn't be wholly determined by either a writing test OR a multiple choice test.
It's not that I disagree. I actually wonder how such a test is graded, but I know in my bones that the movement is the result of upper class white fathers getting upset that their upper class white sons were being aced out by immigrants. The test has always been fundamentally screwy, but why didn't this writing section occur 30 years ago?
quote:You can do things in the military that aren't available anywhere else: Fly jets, for example, or work on a nuclear submarine, or crack foreign code.
Kasie, as cool and true playing with cool toys is, there is something small and puerile about this as a motivation to join the killing arm of government. Most military people I know are really regular guys, then again, so are most gang members I know, as with most felons.
[ October 31, 2006, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Though I wonder about a voter who will take what KERRY said and decide not to vote for OTHER Democrats because of it. Talk about ridiculous.
Hehe...makes me wonder about them too. However, I'm sure there's plenty of people who won't vote for the Republican in their district because of Foley's actions or Bush's words, so
I don't think that two are at all comparable. As much as we think we vote for individuals in this country, we can be certain that our vote will also support a party.
If one is upset not solely about what Foley did, but also about how the republican leadership handled the issue, then it would be logical to vote against any republican house candidate to try to oust the republican leadership.
Similarly, if one is upset about Bush's policies one might want to see the republicans loose their majority in congress because a congress led by democrats is more likely to oppose administration policy.
On the other hand, there is much less rational justification for voting against a democrat in CA because you don't like statements made by a Senator from MA.
You have to add words or make assumptions to make it not make it 'not at all comparable.' I specifically mentioned Foley's actions, not anyone's knowledge of them (you had to add the part about the way leadership handled it). I also specifically mentioned Bush's words, not his policies or anything else.
That just baffles me that you don't see a parallel here. You're in Utah. Would you vote against Hatch merely because George Allen used a racist term? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Which is exactly what Lyrhawn said about someone voting against a local Democrat because of Kerry's remark. I just made it a non-partisan remark and started getting replies about how it's all different. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Having read papers by some of those "upper class white sons" in college, I'm pretty sure that Lyrhawn's answer is correct. Many (if not most) new college students' writing skills are very, very poor.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
*watches white America cover its rump*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
lol, I think it says just as much about your assumptions and predjudices to make such an ignorant statement than it does about the people who made the change.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Irami, I am not "covering my rump"; I am speaking from direct experience. I've taught at a college level for almost seven years now. I've read many papers, and many of them, from students of all backgrounds, have been very, very poorly written. Well-written papers are the exception, not the rule, regardless of a student's background.
But, I've forgotten that your prejudices are the only acceptable ones and are, of course, always right. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Oh goody, a thread wherin certain members of Hatrack get to indulge in their obssesion of foaming at the mouth about "academic elitists" (for which read anyone with a college degree who has ever disagreed with them on any issue, particularly if said person did not vote for George W. Bush.)
This really irritates me. I am a good student, will probably go to at least a fairly reputable college or university before going to grad school (a substantial number of Hatrackers already hate me) and thence, worst of all, to a career in teaching.
Before I started posting on internet fora, I had assumed that teaching was an almost universaly respected profesion. I was suronded by teachers, my father is a retired professor, my mom was a T.A., both of my Grandmothers taught secondary school, many of my friends were the children of teachers.
Since coming here, I have realized that teaching, particularly at the university level, is considered by many to be an elitist profesion with little basis in reality.
This strikes me as fundementaly wrong, and I suspect that it is rooted far more in politics than in any other factor. People with Ph.D.s are more likely to be leftists and far more likely to be liberals than other high school graduates. However, they are less likely to hold leftist economic views than high school dropouts.
So what? Are those really factors to base a worldview on?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I know undergraduate papers are awful. They were awful in the 90s. They were awful in the 80s. They have probably been awful as long as we've had state-sponsored colleges. But for some reason, throughout the whole time, nobody thought to mess with the SAT to address this issue.
My argument is that had white high schoolers continued to dominate college admissions tests, I don't think anyone would have thought to look to the SAT to fix this writing deficit.
Now whites will get higher scores and everyone can go on with that myth that the SAT-- and success in America by extension-- is a matter of merit.
I'm just waiting for for the AMA to start tweaking the MCATs.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Irami, you are one of the most bigoted people I have ever encountered.
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Ph,
You can't really talk about white people the way I do and expect to get on, but I think you'd be surprised at how many non-white people would agree, but are too scared/polite to say something about it.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Just a tad bit the racist are we Irami?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't see why he is so resistant to apologizing. It's almost as if he's conflated apologizing about the remark to apologizing to Bush - and that's not what is going on here.
Or maybe he is genuinely incensed that the right wing pundits took this quote out of context and to diliberately deceive others and manipulate the opinion of military men and women. If thats the case, I find his anger completely justifiable. What the right wing pundits have done is the essence of "baring false witness against your neighbor". I don't know about you Belle, but most people, even mature adults, find it difficult to apologize when they are justifiable angry. What exactly is he supposed to apologize for, saying something which his enemies could strip from its context and blow out of proportion?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'd bring up the fact that technically, I too can claim to be an oppressed minority, but then you'd just go on about how it doesn't matter because I'm culturally white instead of acknowledging that you are, indeed, an incredibly bigoted individual.
Maybe, just maybe, race would be less of an issue if you'd stop playing the race card at every turn.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The intended joke is something he should apologize for.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Neely Fuller isn't the greatest technical writer, but I wholely agree with the sentiment he expresses here:
quote:White people who practice racism know that they could, if they chose to do so, produce justice and correctness among the people of the known universe. They are smart enough to do this. They also know, however, that in the process of producing justice and correctness, they would also eliminate white supremacy. Knowing this, they have chosen not to produce justice and correctness. They prefer to continue to practice white supremacy, though they fully understand that in order to practice white supremacy they must do so by promoting falsehood, non-justice, and incorrectness. They apparently have judged that white supremacy is better than revealing truth. They apparently believe that the value of white supremacy is at least as "valuable" as the practice of justice and correctness. To them, the promotion of white supremacy has proven to be, in many respects, "better" than justice, and "better" than correctness.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why will whites get higher scores on the new SATs?
The white kids are writing just as bad as the black kids.
If this is an insinuation that adding written tests are an attack on kids who don't speak English, I have to wonder how well those kids are going to do anyway, when teachers teach in English, books are in English, and their papers in school will have to be written in English as well.
I just don't see anything of substance behind your argument.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Ph,
You can't really talk about white people the way I do and expect to get on, but I think you'd be surprised at how many non-white people would agree, but are too scared/polite to say something about it.
Do I count? Because I think you're really off-base on this one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The intended joke is something he should apologize for.
The intended joke was to call Bush stupid.
I don't think anyone should have to apologize for telling the truth. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Why will whites get higher scores on the new SATs?
Because the first generation immigrant kids can memorize the vocab and do the math, but will blow the writing sample.
quote:If this is an insinuation that adding written tests are an attack on kids who don't speak English, I have to wonder how well those kids are going to do anyway, when teachers teach in English, books are in English, and their papers in school will have to be written in English as well.
I guess I'll have to say this more clearly, these written tests are an attack on kids who don't speak English, while at the same time, it gives kids who do speak and hear proper english at home a leg up.
I agree with adding a writing section. Why not? I think the college admissions racket is so full of bull that adding a writing section is like putting a bing cherry on a pile of feces. You think the impetus for the change stems from college professors, I think the impetus stems from ticked off white fathers--though those two groups may be one in the same-- the result is the same: a writing section. Whoopie!
Sure you count, Icarus. I can't speak for all non-white people. I speak for me, under my name.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: With a gaffe this obvious, they'd be the worst politicians of all time NOT to wring it for all they can get.
So you are saying that even though republicans KNOW that Kerry never meant to insult the military, they would be the worst politicians ever if they don't continue to repeat something they know to be untrue?
By my definition, continueing to interpret something in a way you know to be untrue is dishonesty.
Even I'm not cynical enought to say that failing to diliberately lie about your opponent when ever you think its to your advantage would make you the worst politician of all times.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:White people who practice racism know that they could, if they chose to do so, produce justice and correctness among the people of the known universe. They are smart enough to do this.
They are smart enough to do something that no one has ever accomplished in human history?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:They are smart enough to do something that no one has ever accomplished in human history?
But it makes me feel good to watch people try. Word is, that's why the pyramid on the back of the dollar is unfinished, as a symbol that there is ever more work to be done to build a more perfect nation.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:You think the impetus for the change stems from college professors, I think the impetus stems from ticked off white fathers--though those two groups may be one in the same-- the result is the same: a writing section. Whoopie!
That assumption is equivalent to the belief that all black men are carrying concealed weapons and wish others bodily harm.
-pH
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Irami said
quote:You think the impetus for the change stems from college professors, I think the impetus stems from ticked off white fathers--though those two groups may be one in the same-- the result is the same: a writing section. Whoopie!
That's an interesting opinion supported by exactly no evidence. I have not direct familiarity with the changes in the SAT, but do have some direct familiarity in similar changes that were made in the GRE at the same time. Those changes were driven, with out question, by college professors in the humanities who believed that a writing test would provide better information about student's scholarly potential in humanities fields than the multiple choice tests provide. Many of these very same professors who pushed for these changes are progressive advocates for greater diversity (i.e. more dark skinned minorities) in their programs.
Wealthy white males with prestigious private school educations don't need to worry about their sons not making the cut. Those schools all have legacy programs that result in near automatic acceptance for the children of their alumni regardless of SAT scores. How else would Bush have ever gotten accepted into Ivy League schools?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Irami -
I really don't know what to say to people like you. I think you're one of the people that love to just attack everything for the sake of it rather than try to do anything at all to fix it. College admittance tests are a reality. Adding a writing portion to the test is the university way of telling K-12 schools to get back to teaching students how to write.
Are you trying to tell me that out of country students don't go to American schools? There's plenty of kids who come to America to go to school, and they assimilate. First generation immigrant kids will go to school in American schools and then do it the way everyone else does.
But let's say that isn't fair. What do you suggest is the best way to cater to immigrant children to make sure that they have some sort of separate but equal admittance process alternative to the status quo?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Dr. Rabbit, I don't have a smoking gun latter from the donors to Richard Atkinson saying, "We have to do something, these asians are kicking my kid's hide."
I do have Pat Buchanan, and I think that he was articulating what quite a few mothers and fathers were thinking.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Irami,
You're right, I probably did use the puerile reasons...only because they only reason I'd ever join was if they would let me fly jets
But in all seriousness, I do think there are people out there who join the military for a noble or legitimate reason, without being forced into it by circumstance or stupidity, and I don't think the entire institution deserves to be denigrated by unfair assumptions. Some join out of a desire to give back, or a desire to go on to a career in government service (intelligence agencies, for example, draw heavily on people with military backgrounds), or some other goal. And I, frankly, am glad there are highly educated people who are willing to serve in the military so I have the option do do other things if I want to. Same as I'm glad other people are willing to slog through medical school so I don't have to (though there'd never be a draft for doctors, except military ones).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, are you saying that Pat Buchanan speaks for the majority of Americans?
I can't tell if you are being dishonest or telling a joke.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Sorry, are you saying that Pat Buchanan speaks for the majority of Americans?
I can't tell if you are being dishonest or telling a joke.
Lyrhawn, don't you know that if one white person says something, all white people must be thinking it?
Funny, since if anyone applied, say, Ludacris' sentiments to the entire black community, that'd be racist.
-pH
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
So, listen. Our national political culture is crap right now, and just the general climate in our country is crap. And this event (John kerry's flub), and this discussion (here on hatrack), does a pretty good job of showing why.
First of all, this wouldn't be an issue if John Kerry (and Democrats in general) weren't so fixated on the idea of insulting the President for political gain. It has become a political talking-point to call President Bush stupid, or uneducated -- and it's a lie, and it does nothing for anyone. It pushes the conservatives farther and farther away from the Democratic message (what on EARTH *is* the Democratic message?) to the point that it hurts the credibility of the left. It's a stupid tactic.
John Kerry has to know that, at this point, Limbaugh, Reagan, Fox News, Coulter, and a variety of other despicable, venomous sharks are scouring the speeches and the activities of Democrats for words to twist to their own advantage. They've been painting this insanely distorted view of "liberals" for 20 years. They're not going to stop now. The culture the conservatives have created is one where a man can't honestly *say* something wrong, can't flub a joke, can't look at two sides of an issue and change his mind.
I voted for Kerry, because I bought into the “we have to get Bush out of office” mentality. Kerry wasn’t really my candidate. But I think things with Bush have gone terribly, terribly wrong (most especially domestically). But when I see Bush being interviewed on television, and the issues come up surrounding the personal attacks we see being bandied by both sides, Bush says “I leave that to others. I’m not here to trade insults with people, I’m here to work on this and this and this.” And THAT is the appropriate attitude. However much I might disagree with the President on so many things... he seems to be one of the few guys in politics who’s not at the throats of people he disagrees with, and he’s got *that* much right.
Kerry is kind of an ass, for even trying the joke -- for a variety of reasons. Just a mistake in every way.
Hey. What’s it going to take to get this country back on track?
We’ve got a climate right now where smart people, legitimately smart people who don’t *seem* like idiots --? Are agreeing with idiotic policies or political ideas because those ideas come from “their team,” “their side” -- regardless of merit. There’s no thought-process involved.
Conservatives are running around like brain-washed zombies saying, “those liberals, with their elitist attitudes” -- based on absolutely nothing. “They want to turn America into a Socialist Nation, folks, and Socialism leads to Fascism every time.” There are actually people on the conservative side of the aisle who think FDR’s administration was disastrous for this country.
Liberals are running around saying “the President is uneducated. Get the troops out of Iraq. President Bush doesn’t have a plan.” Not because they know anything about the topics, but because they’re Democratic talking-points. They hear somebody saying these things (not sure who) and without so much as *thinking* about the reality of the situation, they accept the soundbite and somehow process it into their heads as knowledge. Now they think they know something, but they don’t.
We can’t have a country where all of our opinions are handed to us by our favorite politicians. We’ve got to start thinking for ourselves. This environment we live in is poisonous and ridiculous and stupid.
Liberal: Gotta stop Global Warming. Conservative: Why? It’s a natural process of the earth. Stop trying to panic everyone. Liberal: That refutes fifty years of good science. Conservative: Environmental wackos made that science up. Liberal: That makes no sense.
Conservative: We’ve got to stay the course in Iraq. Liberal: What? We need to get *out* of Iraq -- like yesterday. Conservative: If we pull the troops out now, we’re abandoning the people of Iraq to a very dark future. Liberal: Uh... George Bush doesn’t have a plan.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Irami, the SAT is far from being the only college admision test. Most college admisions tests do require a good knowledge of English or, less commonly, another European language (usualy French). However, I don't see any this could be changed. There are excelent universities around the world that are happy to teach non-English speakers.
It is however true that not speaking English is a major disadvantage these days. You will, of course, note the vast numbers of non-native English speakers among both students and professors. I agree that these are the exception, however, I do not have any idea how to make them the rule.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Because the first generation immigrant kids can memorize the vocab and do the math, but will blow the writing sample.
I actually think its more likely to work in the opposite direction depending on how the writing is graded. Vocabulary actually gives children of well educated parents the biggest advantage because they are much more likely to have heard these words used in context since childhood. Immigrants, even those who seem fluent in spoken English, typically have a very limited vocabulary. One of the biggest challenge for ESL kids in high school is reading the text books even when they seem completely fluent in English. Very few words are used by children and teenagers in ordinary conversation so ESL students can rapidly learn just a small number of words and be fluent. But text books use a much larger number of words. Because educated adults use a much large spoken vocabulary, children with educated native speaking parents hear more words and so they know more words.
In contrast, many students can write cogent essays even without a extensive vocabulary and even if they make some grammatical errors. I've been reading papers and reports written by chinese, vietnamese, korean, thai, mexicans, germans and other ESL students for over a decade and the surprising thing is that their writing isn't noticably worse than the writing of many of the native English speakers in my classes. They make grammar errors that native speakers are unlikely to make, but bad grammar isn't the biggest writing problem for any of my students.
To write a cogent essay, students have to be able to think clearly and organize their thoughts. They need critical thinking skills which are virtually indepent of language skills. If the writing sections of the SAT and GRE are graded giving the greatest weight to higher level writing skills like organization and critical thinking, and less weight to simple grammar issues then they should not disadvantage ESL students.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Who cares about the majority? This fascination with the majority is unfortunate. Buchanan is on the right-wing fringe. But in the domain of white republicans, he isn't that far out.
On this issue I think he articulated their truth as much as Al Sharpton articulated mine, while Sharpton was on the stump.
Anyway, the problem is solved. College admissions are the better for it.
Kasie,
I don't disagree with you. The military is the military. I have what can be considered a problem with authority. I wouldn't make a good juror or military man because I'm almost always going to vote my conscience. The good thing is, with people like me in the military, you don't have to worry about the Mai Lais, the Abu Graibs, and the concentration camps, as I'm one of the last cats who is going to say, "I was just following orders or trying to get ahead."
quote:intelligence agencies, for example, draw heavily on people with military backgrounds
I know. The wisdom of this is controversial.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Dr. Rabbit, I don't have a smoking gun latter from the donors to Richard Atkinson saying, "We have to do something, these asians are kicking my kid's hide."
I do have Pat Buchanan, and I think that he was articulating what quite a few mothers and fathers were thinking.
Pat Buchanan and his supporter get exactly zero weight with college admissions boards.
The funny thing here is that I am a long term proponent of increasing diversity in Higher Education. I have served on various committees to try to increase the enrollment of underrepresented minorities on the campuses where I work. At its root, I agree with the arguement that their is an enormous amount of institutionalized racism in the US education system. I know that there are alot of white males out their, who are POd that they now have to compete with women and darker skinned people for positions that were once reserved for them. Much of their complaining about "reverse discrimination" is childish whining about the loss of an undeserved privilege and a lame excuse for their own failures.
With so many real and documentable things going on which disadvantage immigrants and the poor in our education system, it seems counter productive to complain that changes in the SAT test were motivated by racism.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The major difference in language skills has to do with one's education, not one's firs language. I can tell you from experience that the son of a Mexican or Turkish university professor will probably speak and write better English than most American children. He will probably also speak French and maybe one or two other languages. Meanwhile, the son of an American blue-collar worker is not nearly as well educated.
English is not the problem, tests arn't the problem, our educational system is the problem. Some educational systems fail the poor, ours certainly does that, but, worse than failing the poor, we fail everybody.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There is an article about how Richard Atkinson or one of his aides was helping his daughter or nephew with SAT, read and missed some of the questions, and that's what sparked Atkinson's crusade. The funny thing is that Atkinson was right, some of the analogies on the old SAT were ridiculous. Atkinson, then UC President, more than any other man, was the bulldog for the SAT change.
This is the subtle hand of white supremacy in action.
I'm not saying overall change is bad. I am curious how much random things like penmanship now effect scores, but overall, writing should be taken seriously. The SAT is a better test for the change, though I don't know how they can read all of those essays at all well without incurring astronomical overheaad costs.
Rabbit,
I'm always a bit nervous when I'm on the other side of you on an issue, but I think I'm right when I say that white supremacy was one of a confluence of motives which lead to the restructuring of the SAT.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
To be fair, I'm not aware of an educational system that does not fail the poor, and we do a better job than most in that regard. If "we fail everybody," which may, sadly, be an appropriate charge, it is because we try to be all things to all people--without having an infrastructure that is up to making that possible.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Icarus, we don't just lack an infrastructure, we lack any idea of what the hell we are doing.
Having no centralized idea for education has no advantages. We are just as capable of being totally wrong as ever, but we are now totally incapable of being right, because we are moving in a thousand different directions at once, which might not be so bad if these directions were not mutually exclusive
No wonder students are confuses, they go to schools filled with contradictions. Their lives are shaped by others: people who are, at best ineffectual, at worst hypocritical and fairly universally confused. These people, school administrators and such, are in turn controlled by a system which seems to be using Catch-22 as an owner's manual.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I'm always a bit nervous when I'm on the other side of you on an issue, but I think I'm right when I say that white supremacy was one of a confluence of motives which lead to the restructuring of the SAT.
Gosh, I hope we win then!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Anyway, the problem is solved. College admissions are the better for it.
Egad, that's childish of you.
quote:I wouldn't make a good juror or military man because I'm almost always going to vote my conscious.
Irami, that's not the reason you wouldn't make a good juror or military man. The reason you wouldn't make a good juror or military man is that you seem incapable of distinguishing between your conscience and your prejudices.
quote:I think I'm right when I say that white supremacy was one of a confluence of motives which lead to the restructuring of the SAT.
Irami, we've had this conversation before. And at the time these changes were proposed, I was working for the National Council of Teachers of English. At no point in the discussion of this issue did anyone ever mention the possibility of "white supremacy." You want to know why the writing sample was added? It's because educators were concerned that the rigid multiple-choice format was daunting for people who weren't good at testing (in my experience, this is usually a code-word for "minorities"), and there was a demand to more aggressively measure skills that could not be easily quantified by the original five-answer format.
The test was quite consciously and deliberately dumbed down, Irami, mainly out of a desire to make it easier for "under-represented" groups. If I were you, I'd be offended by that instead of clinging to your belief in a cabal of scheming white admissions officers.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"you seem incapable of distinguishing between your conscience and your prejudices."
That is a primary symptom a serious mental illness:— humanity.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The reason you wouldn't make a good juror or military man is that you seem incapable of distinguishing between your conscience and your prejudices.
Potato, po-tah-to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: There is an article about how Richard Atkinson or one of his aides was helping his daughter or nephew with SAT, read and missed some of the questions, and that's what sparked Atkinson's crusade. The funny thing is that Atkinson was right, some of the analogies on the old SAT were ridiculous. Atkinson, then UC President, more than any other man, was the bulldog for the SAT change.
This is the subtle hand of white supremacy in action.
. . .
. . .
I'm always a bit nervous when I'm on the other side of you on an issue, but I think I'm right when I say that white supremacy was one of a confluence of motives which lead to the restructuring of the SAT.
That's a bit of a logical leap. Perhaps I misunderstood you but you seem to imply that the fact that Richard Atkinson was leading this fight is clear evidence for white supremacy.
Atkinson's positions and actions regarding minority students in the UC system could be viewed as mixed, but it is far from the white supremicist simplicity you suggest. While Richard Atkinson was President of the UC system when it abandoned afirmative action in admissions, that decision was made by the UC Board of Regents and I believe innitially opposed by Atkinson. To compensate, Atkinson instituted a variety of out reach programs to under represented minorities and assistance programs for schools with a high proportion of black. latinos and native Americans. As a result, the % of under represented minorities in the UC system has grown since affirmative actions was ended rather than dropped. While I would agree that Atkinson has not been a real champion for under represented minorities, he is also in no way a white supremicist.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Pelegius, I was with you until you seemed to turn your criticisms on the individuals in the system. Specifically, I don't agree that individuals working within the system are "at best ineffectual."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
FWIW, I think the removal of the analogies section was tragic. Of course, I like analogies, so YMMV.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree with you there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I never really liked the section where they ask where the comma goes.
Which of the following is correct?
A. But before long, Jim, was dead. B. But, before long, Jim was dead. C. But before, long Jim was dead. D. But before long, Jim was dead.
Only C. jumps out at me as immediately wrong, unless Jim was often called "long Jim" by his friends, though I supposed that's a leap for the test. The other three all look perfectly fine depending on context and the tone the writer was intending to convey, and the style in which he wanted it read aloud.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:That's a bit of a logical leap. Perhaps I misunderstood you but you seem to imply that the fact that Richard Atkinson was leading this fight is clear evidence for white supremacy.
I guess not being clear. The SAT has been bad for 50 years. It hasn't been a great secret.
For the last 10 years, immigrants have been dominating the SAT, with results that are apparent at the better California schools and the Ivy Leagues.
Now the test is changed. My argument is, and this is the controvesial one, if immigrants had not started scoring better than whites on the SAT, the change would not have happened.
Lyrawn, D?
Because the first clause counts as an appositive or an exepegetical something or other, I think.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This wasn't the first time in 50 years that they changed the test, although it could be argued that this was the most radical change.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I believe your claim that immigrants as a group have been dominant in the SAT is erroneous. Can you document it?
-o-
I don't think the SAT is all bad; it is the only equalizer (yes, I know that is a controversial claim in and of itself) in a very unequal system. Certainly it was the only thing that helped me overcome some imbalances I faced; it opened a lot of educational doors to me that would have been closed otherwise.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't count the recentering.
[ October 31, 2006, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Standardized tests got me into college and law school. I like them. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't think the SAT is all bad; it is the only equalizer in a very unequal system.
The problem is not that this is a very controversial claim. It is an absolutely indefensible claim. Virtually everyone who does college admissions or scholarships recognizes that SAT, ACT and any other standardized test scores are neither equalizers or particularly good predictors for success in college. So why do colleges and Universities keep requiring them? For the same reason we keep asking for high school transcripts, and letters of recommendation and personal statements and so on. The hope is that the biases on the SAT (or any other standardized test) are different from the biases inherent in other measures. The hope is that if we look at enough different measures with different biases the errors will cancel each other out and give us a more accurate picture.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Standardized tests got me into college and law school. I like them.
*laughs* Yeah, it's stockholm syndrome on a countrywide scale.
Rabbit,
This is one of the issues I had working in the Senator's office. For letters of rec for high schoolers going to the service academies, they cut first 90 percent based on scores and grades. That's it. It made me physically ill.
The process subverts your checks and balance system.
[ October 31, 2006, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't say I think they're good or they should be continued - I don't know near enough to have an opinion. But it would be churlish not to like them on a personal level.
In my case, the SAT was a very good predictor of performance in 7 out of 8 semesters, and the LSAT was a near-perfect predictor of law school performance.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I believe your claim that immigrants as a group have been dominant in the SAT is erroneous. Can you document it?
I think that what Irami means is "Asians" not immigrants. The majority of immigrants in the past 20 years have been latinos and I haven' t seen any evidence for an SAT bias toward latinos, if anything it goes the other way.
The stats I've seen don't separate Asian immigrants from Asian born in the US so I suspect Irami's use of the the word immigrant is wholely inaccurate.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I didn't want to say Asians, but yeah, I meant Asians.
quote:In my case, the SAT was a very good predictor of performance in 7 out of 8 semesters, and the LSAT was a near-perfect predictor of law school performance.
Don't you wonder if a flawed standardized test is too good of a predictor, maybe the whole institution is poisoned.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You're right, Rabbit. I probably shouldn't have gone to college. *shrug*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: FWIW, I think the removal of the analogies section was tragic. Of course, I like analogies, so YMMV.
Ditto.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I never really liked the section where they ask where the comma goes.
Which of the following is correct?
A. But before long, Jim, was dead. B. But, before long, Jim was dead. C. But before, long Jim was dead. D. But before long, Jim was dead.
Only C. jumps out at me as immediately wrong, unless Jim was often called "long Jim" by his friends, though I supposed that's a leap for the test. The other three all look perfectly fine depending on context and the tone the writer was intending to convey, and the style in which he wanted it read aloud.
That strikes me as an indication that you don't understand the rules of comma usage. Not a reflection on the test.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Irami, can you substantiate the claim that Asian students cannot write well, relative to other groups?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I didn't say I think they're good or they should be continued - I don't know near enough to have an opinion. But it would be churlish not to like them on a personal level.
In my case, the SAT was a very good predictor of performance in 7 out of 8 semesters, and the LSAT was a near-perfect predictor of law school performance.
I'm not sure how you can even begin to talk about good prediction for one case. When people talk about whether standardized test (or anything else) are good predictors for college performance, they mean that there is a correlation between test scores and grades. You can't have a correlation with only one data point. The implication of "good predictor" is that people with higher scores will do better in college than people with lower scores. To know whether or not the LSAT and SAT were good predictors of your college performance, we need to know how compared to people with both higher and lower test scores. Your score alone is not enough to even speculate on a correlation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You're right, Rabbit. I probably shouldn't have gone to college. *shrug*
Um, I think Rabbit was saying that the test was biased against Latinos.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As a Democratic Congressman told ABC News, "I guess Kerry wasn't content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You can't prove a correlation with only one data point, but Dag certainly can indicate that the tests accurately predicted his performance. He's not talking about other people; he's talking about himself.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, can you substantiate the claim that Asian students cannot write well, relative to other groups?
Relative to whites? Are you kidding me? We are talking about the difference between measuring the english fluency of hungry immigrants who learned english when they were 10 and whose parents who don't speak at all vs. Lowells, Cabots, and Lodges who came over on the Mayflower.
Yeah, I don't know. Are we really going pretend that the latter group isn't going to have a better educated guess on where to place a comma?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You're right, Rabbit. I probably shouldn't have gone to college. *shrug*
It's not polite or ethical to twist another persons words like that.
I never made nor implied anything about your qualifications to go to college, I simply contested the claim that the SAT was in any sense an "equalizer".
I take it that you were able to demonstrate your skills on the SAT than through other measures. Great. What I'm unwilling to concede is that students who did not perform as well on the SAT as you were less deserving of a college education.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure how you can even begin to talk about good prediction for one case.
Because I was making a joke and also bragging a little about how well I did in law school.
However, Icarus's point is well-taken. To extend it a little, standardized tests extended an opportunity to me that likely would not have existed otherwise. I was in the bottom quartile of my entering class for college GPA (see the 1 out of 8 semesters alluded to above). Without the LSATs, I most likely would not have gotten to the stage where my unusual and relevant work experience could have helped me.
In that sense, the standardized test provided the service you described above and let a student who subsequently proved his ability be admitted to the school.
Whatever we do with standardized tests, I hope some mechanism to allow such a result remains.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Irami, can you substantiate the claim that Asian students cannot write well, relative to other groups?
Relative to whites? Are you kidding me? We are talking about the difference between measuring the english fluency of hungry immigrants who learned english when they were 10 and whose parents who don't speak at all vs. Lowells, Cabots, and Lodges who came over on the Mayflower.
Yeah, I don't know. Are we really going pretend that the latter group isn't going to have a better educated guess on where to place a comma?
Are all Asians recent immigrants now? 'cause I wasn't aware of that one.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You're right, Rabbit. I probably shouldn't have gone to college. *shrug*
Um, I think Rabbit was saying that the test was biased against Latinos.
I'm not really approaching it from the standpoint of cultural bias at all. I'm just looking at my own educational experience. The SAT was the one and only positive indicator I had going in. Other kids withy lower SAT scores than I had had the same opportunities because of their higher grades or their better recommendations, but without the SAT, I would have had drastically reduced opportunities. It (i.e., my statement) has nothing to do with the particular happenstance that I happen to be latino. I'm sympathetic to claims of cultural bias, for obvious reasons, but I get annoyed when the SAT's worth is completely discounted, because in my particular case, it was the only accurate predictor.
I went to an extremely difficult school that prided itself on rigorous admissions standards, and to making C the true average grade for kids who would have been on the honor roll anywhere else. I watched classmate after classmate fail out of my school, go to the crosstown rival, and have their grades immediately skyrocket. My school also had vanishingly few AP offerings, because they did not believe in electives, as a general view. So our valedictorian only had a GPA of about 3.9 or 4.1, when those of other schools had GPAs pushing or exceeding 5.0. I graduated high school with a GPA just under 2.0. I also didn't have the luxury of great recommendations. When I was in high school, I was deep in a multi-year depression. I attempted suicide in ninth grade, and I was always a loner, socializing pretty much exclusively with a small group of friends, where none of us really fit into the society at my school. To anybody else, I was a quiet, possibly surly kid, certainly dark, and not involved. I was also a scholarship kid in a rich kid school, and I didn't fit in socially in any way; I was far from being a leader on campus. I didn't have anybody who would write more than a perfunctory letter of recommendation for me.
Without the SAT to say otherwise, what kind of a future would I have had? One in which it was assumed that what I was in high school was all that I could be.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Irami, can you substantiate the claim that Asian students cannot write well, relative to other groups?
Relative to whites? Are you kidding me? We are talking about the difference between measuring the english fluency of hungry immigrants who learned english when they were 10 and whose parents who don't speak at all vs. Lowells, Cabots, and Lodges who came over on the Mayflower.
Irami, Five percent of the US population or 15 million Americans identify themselves as Asian. Only 4 million of those have immigrated to the US since 1990. This suggest that 2/3 of college age Asians in the US have been hear their whole lives. To equate Asian and immigrant is inaccurate.
I have taught at the University level for more than 15 years and have read reports written by many Asian students. Those who attended high school in the US have no substantial difference in their writing skills than other students who attended US high schools. Those who immigrated to the US post high school sometimes struggle with the language but just as often, there writing is better than that of my native English speakers.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I never made nor implied anything about your qualifications to go to college, I simply contested the claim that the SAT was in any sense an "equalizer". [Emphasis added]
It certainly was for me. I saw firsthand that not all high schools were equal, but that all kids had to take SATs of comparable difficulty.
quote:I take it that you were able to demonstrate your skills on the SAT than through other measures. Great. What I'm unwilling to concede is that students who did not perform as well on the SAT as you were less deserving of a college education. [/qb]
I'm not aware of having made this claim.
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
thats just terrible, i dont care who you are, politican or regular joe, John Kerry just made a terrible mistake refering to our countrys soldiers as "un-educated", wether or not you are for this war, you cannot disrespect the people who have decided to fight it. John Kerry, I take away kudos from you. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Irami, can you substantiate the claim that Asian students cannot write well, relative to other groups?
Relative to whites? Are you kidding me? We are talking about the difference between measuring the english fluency of hungry immigrants who learned english when they were 10 and whose parents who don't speak at all vs. Lowells, Cabots, and Lodges who came over on the Mayflower.
Yeah, I don't know. Are we really going pretend that the latter group isn't going to have a better educated guess on where to place a comma?
Heh, I like the dichotomy of Americans there. We're all either poor, hungry and just arrived, or we're sitting on large plantations somewhere, having been here for 300 years.
On one side of my family, we're related to an American Vite President. On the other, my grandpa came over speaking French from Quebec. We must have misplaced our copy of the Mayflower Compact.
And like I said before, no one knows where those damned commas go.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I'm not really approaching it from the standpoint of cultural bias at all. I'm just looking at my own educational experience.
Sorry. I completely misunderstood which part of Rabbit's posts you were responding to.
I happen to think that while certainly not the only thing college admissions should look at, SAT scores are an exceedingly useful tool.
And these days I can say that based on experience from both sides of the desk. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
We are talking about a test that measures where you put the comma. Look, it doesn't look like I'm doing much good here. I'm going back to my other venue for sticking it to the man.
Rabbit, I think you are great. It's always a pleasure. Everyone else, maybe you are right and I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You're right, Rabbit. I probably shouldn't have gone to college. *shrug*
It's not polite or ethical to twist another persons words like that.
It's certainly not polite to condescendingly dismiss someone's post by referring to it as "indefensible." Whether it's ethical or not is not something I presume to comment on.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And like I said before, no one knows where those damned commas go.
Uh-huh. And that would explain why a perfect score on the TSWE was only the 95th percentile. That's right, FIVE PERCENT of those taking the Test of Standard Written English got a perfect score.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheDisgruntledPostman: thats just terrible, i dont care who you are, politican or regular joe, John Kerry just made a terrible mistake refering to our countrys soldiers as "un-educated", wether or not you are for this war, you cannot disrespect the people who have decided to fight it. John Kerry, I take away kudos from you.
Disgruntled, Did you read or listen to what John Kerry said? He never said that our country's soldiers are "uneducated". He said that if you study and learn you'll have all sorts of option and if you don't, you'll end up in Iraq. He has since clarified that he was referring to Bush and not the soldiers, but even if he had been referring to the soldiers its quite a logical stretch to get from his statements to Mig's claim that "Kerry insults US troops as uneducated". At the very most, a logical interpretation of his statement leads to the conclusion that the military may be the only option for dummies but he never said nor implied that only dummies would join the army. He is after all a veteran himself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We are talking about a test that measures where you put the comma.
And your assertion is that Asian students don't place commas as well as white students, despite outperforming white students in every other category of the original test, and that white administrators changed the test to deliberately disadvantage Asians?
Irami, that's absolutely laughable. I understand that you want to make ubiquitous white oppression a premise of your faith, but you have to recognize that this makes you only marginally more credible than, say, a Scientologist.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And your assertion is that Asian students don't place commas as well as white students, despite outperforming white students in every other category of the original test, and that white administrators changed the test to deliberately disadvantage Asians?
Yep.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's certainly not polite to condescendingly dismiss someone's post by referring to it as "indefensible."
I'm sorry you interpreted my post as an attack on you or your post. I thought I had clearly stated that the "claim" was indefensible. This was not intended to be dismissive of either you or your post but a statement of the facts as I know them. Study after study has found that SAT scores are not effective predictors of success in college. They have also found numerous biases in the tests. I have never seen a study which found otherwise. If you think your claim was defensible, defend it but don't start twisting my words into an attack on your person when no such attack was made.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Despite having absolutely no evidence of any kind for any one of those claims, namely:
1) that Asian students don't write as well as whites 2) that Asian students are doing worse now that the SAT has been changed 3) that the SAT's alterations were initiated and manipulated by a group of racists ?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Absolutely no evidence is a strong assertion. I have two eyes, experience at Berkeley, and these wits.
I'll agree to the rest, though.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
So pretty much what you're saying is...if you say it, it must be true?
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey, do any of you have JSTOR access? I think this article is relevant, but I can't access it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I interpreted it not as an attack, but as a dismissal. My post wasn't apparently worthy of being attacked. And my point was not to unethically twist your words, but to emphasize that without the SAT, I wouldn't have had many educational opportunities after high school. I probably would have gone to community college, like many of my classmates, and maybe gotten a job doing data entry for a bank or something. A good life, sure, but not the one I have now. The SAT opened doors for me, and, like Dagonee, I'm not in a hurry to dismiss the only indicator that said I was worth a damn as being itself worthless.
As far as defending my statement, I would point to what I witnessed in high school, where students who went to easier high schools had better grades. The SAT is not perfect or free from problems, but it does force people to compete on the same field at least, whether it's level or not. I would also dispute, or at least question, your claim that college admissions folks are virtually unanimous on the lack of validity in the SAT, because the university officials I have known--and there have been several--have made contradictory statements to me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Anyway, I think we agree on more than we disagree. I apologize for my melodramatic response. You touched on a sore nerve.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I would also dispute, or at least question, your claim that college admissions folks are virtually unanimous on the lack of validity in the SAT, because the university officials I have known--and there have been several--have made contradictory statements to me.
Include me on that list. And the main other person I work with in admissions considers them even more significant than I do.
In fact, I have yet to speak to a college admissions person who considers SAT scores completely useless. Most consider it one of several important measures. Exactly how much to weight it relative to other measures is of course debatable and debated.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You can't prove a correlation with only one data point, but Dag certainly can indicate that the tests accurately predicted his performance. He's not talking about other people; he's talking about himself.
Clearly we disagree about what it means to predict. Standardized tests don't have an intrinsic meaning, there has to be context to tell what they mean. If someone had already developed a correlation that said a person with score X on the SAT will earn a GPA of Y, then we could look at only Dag's scores and determine whether or not they accurately predicted his performance.
But since no such correlation exists, we absolutely have to look at more than one score to know whether or not it accurately predicted Dag's performance. We have to know whether Dag did better or worse in Law school than people who scored higher and lower than he did.
In other words, I don't consider the qualitative assessment of he did well on the test and well in grad school to be predictive. Why not? Because the whole point of admissions is competitive. When faculty admit people to a program they aren't simply trying to pick candidates who will do well, they are trying to predict which applicants will be best. Suppose for example that the law school has 100 applicants and can only admit 25. What the school wants is to admit the 25 students who would end up at the top of the class if all 100 students were admitted. To know with certainty whether the LSAT was a good predictor for Dag, we would have to know that none of the 75 rejected students with lower LSAT scores would have done better than Dag if they had been admitted.
In the end, college admission boards aren't looking to predict whether or not a student will be good. What they want is to accept the students who would be at the top of the class if everyone was accepted. It is inherently a competitive processes so you can't talk about prediction for just one individual.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:And your assertion is that Asian students don't place commas as well as white students, despite outperforming white students in every other category of the original test, and that white administrators changed the test to deliberately disadvantage Asians?
Yep.
Get real Irami. If you are going to keep making these outlandish claims, you are going to need to back them up with some data. Not anticdotes. Not quotes from right wing wackos. Give us some actual data which shows that changes in the SAT has disadvanted Asian immigrants. Give us some data that shows Asians are worse with commas than white males.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have JSTOR access, but I don't think I can repost the article here due to copyright concerns. Did you want a summary?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, please.
And if there was a paragraph on how Asians scored on the TSWE (which is what I was looking for), maybe you could post that one paragraph?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I would also dispute, or at least question, your claim that college admissions folks are virtually unanimous on the lack of validity in the SAT, because the university officials I have known--and there have been several--have made contradictory statements to me.
Include me on that list. And the main other person I work with in admissions considers them even more significant than I do.
In fact, I have yet to speak to a college admissions person who considers SAT scores completely useless. Most consider it one of several important measures. Exactly how much to weight it relative to other measures is of course debatable and debated.
I never said that SAT scores were completely useless, irrelevant or should be thrown out. Can you please stop twisting my statements in ways I never intended. What I said is that it is not an equalizer. It has its biases just like every other indicator. It is neither better nor worse at predicting success in college than other indicators, say for example high school GPA. This is why nearly all admissions processes look at multiple factors.
I've worked on graduate admission at two different Universities and I've looked at GRE (the graduate equivalent of the SAT). I consider them an important indicator but they are far far from being predictive of students performance when taken alone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thank you for clarifying. That is certainly not what I understood you to be saying initially.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think claiming something is an equalizer is the same as claiming something is equal. I think something is an equalizer if its bias counteracts a different bias. If the SAT has different biases than other traditional measures, then it certainly can serve as an equalizer, because it gives an avenue for one groups of students to demonstrate their potential which they would not otherwise have.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Icarus:
quote:I don't think the SAT is all bad; it is the only equalizer in a very unequal system.
Icarus, That is you what you said. That is what I was responding too. If you didn't mean that the SATs were somehow more equal than other elements of the system, then I have no idea what you did mean.
I thought my response was clear enough the first time I said it but since both you and rivka were confused let me rephrase it.
There is no evidence that the SAT gives a more objective or balanced estimate of a students academic potential than high school GPA, admission essays, letters of recommendation or other commonly used indicators. To say it is the only equalizer in an otherwise unequal system is flatly indefensible. Colleges use multiple factors for admission, because all of them are unequal and it is hoped that all of the factors to some extent equalize for biases in other factors
What we believe, or at least hope for, is that standardized tests are biased differently than other measures so that when combined a better picture is obtained than if any one indicator were used. What we'd really like is to have some metric that would accurately predict in advance which students will be most successful in college. We can't do that so we muddle along with an imperfect system, tweaking it from time to time in the hopes of improving it.
[ November 01, 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I forgot JSTOR is image files, so I can't copy and paste from it.
But, I will type a couple of paragraphs for you that are relevant.
It's a pretty short paper that compares the scores of 7,300 incoming college freshmen in California that identified themselves by race on three tests - the TSWE (Test of Standard Written English), the California state English Placement Test (EPT) and the essay portion of the EPT. The TSWE is 50 questions that are answered in 30 minutes and the EPT has four parts: a multiple-choice reading test of 35 minutes, sentence construction questions also 35 minutes, a "logic and organization" section also 35 minutes, and a 45 minute essay writing section. The study compared scores across four ethnic groups - those who identified themselves as caucasian, Asian-American, African-American, and Mexican American.
With black students, there was a marked difference in their scores on the TSWE and the essay portion of the EPT. They scored markedly higher on the essay question. Here is a paragraph from the paper:
quote: Perhaps most interesting is the comparison between the performance of these students on the TSWE and their performance on the EPT essay test. While essay testing, especially on only one topic, is neither definitively reliable nor valid, it does serve as a direct measure of the characteristic indirectly measured by the usage test: writing ability. For white students, there is considerable similarity between the score distribution on the TSWE usage and the EPT essay-writing test. For black students, however, the dramatic dissimilarity casts some real question upon the validity of usage testing as an indicator of writing ability.
The other minority groups - Asian and Mexican Americans - showed a similar pattern. Lower scores on the TSWE and much higher on the essay portion. Again, here's a paragraph reproduced from the paper.
quote: Once again, we see that for these minority groups, there is an important difference in pattern of score distribution between the EPT, particularly the essay portion, and the TSWE. For these two groups, we may presume a certain amount of second-language interference rather than the dialect interference typical of the black group. The TSWE usage test once again rendered a much more negative judgment of these students' use of English than did the evaluators of their writing.
So, if the goal is for white students to out-perform Asians by adding an essay test, then, at least in California, the strategy won't produce the desired effect. Evidence suggests that minority students will actually benefit from essay questions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Hey, do any of you have JSTOR access? I think this article is relevant, but I can't access it.
I just skimmed through this article and so I may not have caught all the subtilties. The paper compares TSWE scores with assessment of actual writing. What it found was that the multiple choice test, which tested low level writing skills such as where to put commas typically rated ESL students writing skills lower than test which evaluated actual writing samples. It makes some recommendation on how to evaluated writing skills in a less biased way.
The paper is consistent with my experience in reading papers from ESL students, that is that there lower level writing skills (basic grammar) are generally worse or at least different than those of native speakers but this deficiency does not translate through to higher order skills such as organization, thesis development and critical analysis. It also suggests that Asian and Latino students will likely perform more favorably on test which compare actuall writing samples than on multiple choice tests when compared to their native speaking peers
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I wrote my post before I read Belle's. I think we go the same overall message from the paper. It suggests that the new SAT test should be less biased against immigrants than the older test.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Evidence suggests that minority students will actually benefit from essay questions.
That is what I thought I remembered.
Thanks, Belle and Rabbit!
(I really need to get the new password at work that should give me access to all this stuff! I keep forgetting. )
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
The thing is - mistake or deliberate - when it came to his attention that a large group of people were offended by his statement an apology would have gone a long way to gaining him support and may even have allowed people to consider his ideas and opinions on other issues. By digging his heels into the ground and refusing to apologize he turns people off. He may not have intended it to come out the way it did but it DID.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
And of course by page 4 the discussion turned to a different topic all together but I just don't have the time to read all the pages.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
[ November 01, 2006, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Do we believe that John Kerry is telling the truth when he says it was a mistake? After all, we only have his word for it, AND he's a politician.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No Scott, I'm not so sure. I mean, I can see the remark being meant toward Bush, but I also wouldn't be surprised to find that he really does feel that way toward the military. There is a perception out there that the average Army enlisted man is lower in intelligence. I'm not saying it's justified (I know too many personally that break that stereotype, including a large number that I go to school with who enlisted for the purpose of being able to get a college degree), but I think the perception is out there.
quote: I don't know about you Belle, but most people, even mature adults, find it difficult to apologize when they are justifiable angry.
And yet, while it may be difficult, apologizing when angry is exactly the sort of behavior a mature adult is supposed to exhibit. Especially a politician, who must learn how to placate different groups of people and be diplomatic when dealing with them. It can't be the first time a career policitian like Kerry was called upon to apologize for something that might have been taken out of context. I have in my life said something that was taken out of context, and I certainly didn't think I was wrong to say it but I've apologized to the people I inadvertently offended. My relationship with them was more important than my being "right."
quote:What exactly is he supposed to apologize for, saying something which his enemies could strip from its context and blow out of proportion?
He's supposed to apologize for calling troops in Iraq uneducated and stupid. Whether he meant to or not, that's how the remark sounded and how it was taken - I can assure you it was the talk of the campus today where I go to school and I heard from more than one Iraqi veteran that they did indeed take it personally. On radio talk shows, I heard many veterans calling in with the same thing, and heard from several people on active duty and their spouses - it offended these people. They did take it personally. They feel like he called them dumb. Maybe Kerry doesn't think they're dumb, maybe he didn't mean to say it, but that doesn't erase the fact that he did say it, and it was taken that way, and so he should be an adult and swallow his anger, justifiable or not, and apologize to those men and women he claims to respect and care for so much.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Password is required.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:
quote:What exactly is he supposed to apologize for, saying something which his enemies could strip from its context and blow out of proportion?
He's supposed to apologize for calling troops in Iraq uneducated and stupid.
But he did not call the troops in Iraq uneducated and stupid. He said
quote:You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.
and he has told us in no uncertain terms that he was referring to the president not the troops.
I doubt any of the offend veterans would have been offended by this statement if the right wing media hadn't started spinning it as an insult to the troops.
If John Kerry owes the people an apology because he said something people misunderstood, then how much greater an apology do all the right wing pundits and media outlets owe John Kerry for twisting his words.
I mean look at the title to this thread. It says "Kerry insults troops as uneducated". Mig told us how to interpret Kerry's words before we ever heard them or read them.
The bottom line is that no one who liked Kerry before this comment thinks he has any need to apologize and those who are demanding his apology will likely twist it as an admission of guilt.
Several people of this thread have already expressed that they double Kerry's voracity in explaining the remark. Can you honestly claim you would trust his sincerity if he apologized? If he said "I'm sorry I called the troops stupid an uneducated", can you honestly claim that the Limbaughs of the world would not spin that as a clear admission of guilt?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Well stated Belle.
What he said is so outrageous, that I want to think that he just mispoke. But a few things in his history make me wonder whether he meant it. 1) coming home from Vietnam and calling the guys he left behind rapist and murderers as bad as Genghis Khan, and 2) accusing the the US troopes in Iraq of terrrorizing the women and children of Iraq.
I've seen Kerry tell jokes and his serious/angry facial expression after the statement doesn't look like he was telling a joke. And where's the joke? Was he trying to call the president stupid? I hope not, regardles of what you think of GWB and his intelligence, I'd expect a guy who wants to be president someday to be less crude and more of a statesman. But that's just me.
Lastly, if he mispoke he should apologize to everyone he offended. This should be SOP for any politician. "If anyone was offended when I mispoke, I apologize, and trust me when I say that I didn't mean what you thought I meant..." Not apologizing also makes him look bad, like he doesn't care whether he offended the men and women he hopes to lead someday.
For a guy who thinks he's so smart, he sure did screw this up. As poor in the eloquence department as GWB can be, I can't think of GWB ever misstating something so touchy and responding to it so poorly. (Kerry likes to think he's smarter than GWB, doesn't he)
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Yeah, it wasn't taken well by a whole lot of people. Even his own party is scrambling to get clear.
I know we have long since stopped discussing stupid military, but I wanted to post this here.
quote: According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 that The Heritage Foundation just released, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen is. Indeed, for every two recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods, there are three recruits coming from the richest neighborhoods.
In fact, since the 9/11 attacks, more volunteers have emerged from the middle and upper classes and fewer from the lowest-income groups. In 1999, both the highest fifth of the nation in income and the lowest fifth were slightly underrepresented among military volunteers. Since 2001, enlistments have increased in the top two-fifths of income levels but have decreased among the lowest fifth.
If Senator John Kerry keeps on, he may ensure that Democrats do not take over the House in the up-coming midterm election. Of course, shooting himself in the foot is not surprising behavior for a person who fragged himself in the butt in Vietnam and then applied for a purple heart for it. But isn't there anyone in the Democratic Party capable of telling Senator Kerry to sit down and shut up, before he drags them all down?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I doubt any of the offend veterans would have been offended by this statement if the right wing media hadn't started spinning it as an insult to the troops.
Please don't try to speak for us. We have mouths of our own and we do know how to use them. We are not as stupid as most people would like to believe. Reread the last part of his statement and tell me how we were to take it differently. Screw this. I'm outa here. See y'all later.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, Senator Kerry's statement does not need any spinning.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Rabbit,
The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy strikes again. Man, it's powerfull.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kerry's record was essentially the same as Bush's at Yale.
Kerry was known for spending time on extra-curriculars instead of schoolwork.
So, it seems tha if it can be said Bush didn't study or do his homework, then it can be said about Kerry to the same extent.
Therefore, according to Kerry's own premise, Kerry would have gotten us stuck in Iraq, too.
Edit: BTW, I take him at his word that he was trying to make a juvenile joke about the President and that he doesn't think the troops are dumb.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If it doesn't need any spinning, then why are all sorts of people including the initiator of this thread spinning it.
If Mig had stared this thread by sayind "Kerry says if you don't study you could end up stuck in Iraq" this thread would have been very different.
Kerry's statement could just as easily be a reference to our nations leaders as a reference to the troops. I can think of several other interpretations of it as well. If you don't think it needs any spinning, then why don't you and the rest of the right wing stop spinning it.
Kerry said he meant it as a insult to the President not the troops. If you are going to be offended, be offended because Kerry called the President stupid but dont' be offended because Mig and others claim the Kerry said our troops were stupid. He didn't.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kerry as president would have gotten us stuck fighting the Jihadist insurgents in New York City.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, when Kerry tries to say he meant to say something different from what he said, then he is the one doing the spinning. Taking his statement at face value is not spinning it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ron can you explain to me how Migs statement is simply taking Kerry's statement at face value. If isn't. Kerry's statement has at least two possible meanings. Migs has only one. That's spinning.
And when Kerry says he meant the second interpretation, that isn't spinning its clarification.
And Stan's right. There really is no point in continuing this conversation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A bigger concern: Kerry hadn't really seen the speech prior to that day, and -- like other poor speech-deliverers before him, from Dan Quayle to George Bush to Nancy Pelosi -- flubbed the line in a way that wasn't immediately obvious. And when his original explanation didn't reflect (for obvious reasons) his unfamiliarity with the "off-the-cuff" scripted joke he was supposed to be delivering, people just blinked at his mention of a "joke" and wondered what he was really supposed to be saying.
The lesson here is that people should write their own speeches, and never script jokes unless they're professional comedians.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I have been wondering, what was it that Kerry actually meant to say? If he misspoke, then let's see how it should have been said. I do not see any minor way to tweak what he said and come up with what he claims he meant to say.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
His people are saying that his writers had scripted a joke that was actually meant to imply that Bush, as a consequence of poor education, got us stuck in Iraq. Which is still in poor taste. And Kerry, seeing the joke, couldn't quite make sense of it and mentally reparsed it into something that wound up being insulting to the wrong person.
Which is why people who aren't comedians shouldn't ever script jokes, and why politicians should write their own speeches.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kerry as president would have gotten us stuck fighting the Jihadist insurgents in New York City.
Seriously, why do people say things like this?
You think that a theoretical President Kerry would have somehow weakened our defenses to the point where Al Qaeda could wander over and brandish automatic weapons in Times Square?
I question the honesty of anyone who makes statements like that. It's hyperbole, and it's just plain ridiculous.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm glad he apologized, it was appropriate and too long in coming.
Of course, he could have seriously defused the situation by doing that right out of the gate instead of saying "I will apologize to no one" then turning around and saying "I'm sorry the next day," now he just looks like he caved under political pressure and that makes a lot of people question the sincerity of the apology.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: His people are saying that his writers had scripted a joke that was actually meant to imply that Bush, as a consequence of poor education, got us stuck in Iraq. Which is still in poor taste. And Kerry, seeing the joke, couldn't quite make sense of it and mentally reparsed it into something that wound up being insulting to the wrong person.
Which is why people who aren't comedians shouldn't ever script jokes, and why politicians should write their own speeches.
]
That's how I heard it when it was played on the news this morning. I was surprised. I expected it to be about underprivledge folks having limited choices and ending up in the army. When I heard it, it seemed clearly a dig at Bush. One that was stupid to make, one that was even more stupid to screw up in the way he did.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I think, in the first few hours, he didn't realize that what he said could really be construed the way republicans construed it, since it was quite obvious from context ( to people who don't automatically want to think the worst of him, and who know more about him then what Bush/Rove want us to think about Kerry) that he was TRYING to attack the president, not the troops.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I have been wondering, what was it that Kerry actually meant to say? If he misspoke, then let's see how it should have been said. I do not see any minor way to tweak what he said and come up with what he claims he meant to say.
quote:...Mr. Kerry explained that he botched a joke that his aides said had been prepared as follows: “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.”
I really don't think there's anything more to read into this. Kerry screwed up, Democrats everywhere cringed, end of story.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Ahhh, but that's just part of the story.
quote: . . .the patented GOP sanctimonious "demand for an apology" . . .
* First, you have to be a phony hypocritical Republican. Democrats can never pull this off. * Second, you have to choose a comment that isn't particularly heinous or is vaguely worded. You want the comment to not be particularly bad, for reasons that become obvious when you get to the endgame. * Third, being desperate to do your bidding because they've been a little bit harsh and are eager to get back in your good graces, you give the media tons of footage and sound-bites to work with. * Fourth you pump the story as hard as you can by demanding that other Democrats distance themselves from the remarks, which they begin to do slowly at first then pile on like a litter of puppies. * Fifth, you wear down the perpetrator (who has, remember, done nothing really wrong) until you get him to apologise.
And then after all this is said and done, you call all Democrats <expletive--trans. weaklings> because they aren't stand-up guys. After all, they just bowed and scraped and apologised for a trivial comment they had no need to apologise for. Who can trust such weaklings to run the government?
quote:I've seen Kerry tell jokes and his serious/angry facial expression after the statement...
I just saw the clip. Immediately after finishing the sentence, he smiled.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Specifically, I don't agree that individuals working within the system are "at best ineffectual."
Of course they are ineffectual. The current system gives no power to anyone who might know what they are doing, such as people who actually come into contact with students. Schools in the United States are theoretically very democratic, being controlled by an uneasy alliance of elected school boards, elected politicians and people appointed by elected politicians. What this means is that schools are in control of political factions. Generally these factions handle any issues that arise by ignoring them. Far worse is when they try to do something. School board members answer to local prejudices, Democratic politicians answer to teachers’ unions and the politically correct, while Republican Congressmen answer to “God gave us guns to shoot Homosexuals” crowd. Teachers and students are generally left out of the picture.
There is a teacher shortage in this country because, in this country, teachers are treated like dirt. The fact that there are so many good teachers is a credit to their willingness to do a thankless job. And there are far fewer good teachers than there are classes to be taught.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
For some reason this thread suddenly reminds me of a sketch on Saturday Night Live last week where a guy playing Howard Dean is being interviewed.
Interviewer: The public now favors the Democrats on just about every issue. *Even* national defense.
Dean: (laughs) I know Chris, it's crazy. We can't be trusted on National Defense.
Interviewer: When asked which party they trusted to lower taxes, the public said -- the Democrats.
Dean: If there's one thing we've tried to make absolutely clear, it's that we're going to raise your taxes. We need that money for wasteful government programs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Morbo -
That reminds me of a story my high school AP English teacher told my class. He was dating a women who had really long fingernails, and was a concert pianist.
He loved to hear her play, but said the noise her nails made on the keys was irritating to an unbearable degree, so he told her she had to cut them, which she did. As soon as she did, he dumped her because he said she shouldn't have just caved when he told her to do something. We asked if he would have stayed with her, had she said no to him. He said of course not, then I'd be stuck with hearing her nails on the keys all day.
- - - -
I seriously wonder what is going through the heads of voters right now. Are they really hearing Kerry speak (do they even care?) and saying "You know, I was going to vote for so and so, a Democrat, but after hearing Kerry diss the troops like that, I really think I should vote for the Republicans just to be sure. After all, despite their mess in Iraq, they at least support the troops."
The best thing Kerry could have done was to IMMEDIATELY apologize and then go on the offensive. "I'm sorry for what I said, and for any pain it has caused the families of men and women in the armed services. I deeply regret that the good fighting men and women of this country were dragged into this debacle. But since we're on the subject, I might ask Republicans and Bush especially where his apology is for the lack of armor our troops have been stuck with during the prosecution of this war, and about his failed policy that got us here to begin with."
Then he pulls out an old campaign favorite from 2004, modified: "I apologize, for the wounds my words might have caused, but they are nothihg compared to the wounds caused by the current administration. My words don't kill, for that you have to look at the guy on top."
- - -
If you want to talk about gaffes, look at the Montana Senate race. The Republican there, said that of course the President wasn't going to tell anyone the plan for Iraq, why? Because the Democrats would screw it up. They'd go and blab the plan to the terrorists, and we'd lose. So apparently the Republican defense to the Democratic criticisms of war mishandling is that they have a secret plan to save Iraq, but won't tell anyone for fear of Democrats blabbing it to the enemy.
Nice.
And if you want to talk about a liberal media running amok...Why hasn't this story been quashed? I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm a liberal media guy in charge of what goes on the air, I'm going to make sure that this Kerry thing dies hard and fast, and not giving free air time to the Republicans 24 hours a day, not when a Republican in TN basically called Harold Ford Jr. a whore monger, among other things, and George Allen in VA is throwing mud about racey sex passages in Webb's book (which he defended nicely by attacking Lynne Cheney), or Conrady Burns in Montana spewing crap about the 'Secret Republican plan in Iraq.' Republicans are saying stupid crap left and right, but the media is focused on Kerry, which will surely, because we live in a country of ridiculous stupidity, give Republicans a small bump in the polls, which is as good as 10 points, when half these races are running neck and neck.
Where's my liberal media?! They aren't doing their jobs!
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
....edited because by the time I posted, the post above mine had been edited....
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Burns is on his way out, here in Montana, I think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I haven't been keeping a close eye on that election. But it looks like the Dem there is mostly playing up his grass roots appeal, and calling Burns a washington insider.
Burns is trying to turn that into a good thing, by saying his position in the party and in Washington is what will guarantee good things for Montana when the time comes.
But he seems prone to making stupid gaffes, like the whole secret Iraq plan thing. I think to be honest, he's been away from home too long, and he's going to be replaced by a guy who looks and acts like he just hopped off a tractor, which is what Montana wants at the moment.
I think it speaks to a larger issue though: The wild West is up for grabs again. Democrats know that they need to expand their base beyond the rooted northeast and scattered midwest, and the pacific west. They need to either crack the Bible Belt, or the west. Montana, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. These are states the Democratic party is serious about retaking, and it looks like they might take a lot of House, Gubanatorial, and State Legislature seats there.
The best thing the Democrats could do in the next two years to show that they are serious about the West is to have the Dem. Nominating Convention in Denver. I'd say Las Vegas, but I don't like the message that would send. Phoenix is a good alternative. But somewhere out west, and not in a bastion of liberalism that they already know is locked up. It's time to spread out, and let small town and western citizens know that there are democrats among them, and we aren't just in the east or extreme west.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: I seriously wonder what is going through the heads of voters right now. Are they really hearing Kerry speak (do they even care?) and saying "You know, I was going to vote for so and so, a Democrat, but after hearing Kerry diss the troops like that, I really think I should vote for the Republicans just to be sure. After all, despite their mess in Iraq, they at least support the troops."
After responding to the similar comment you made yesterday, I've thought about it a bit. I don't think that your tongue-in-cheek suggestion of getting voters to change their mind is the purpose of the last minute frenzies. I think it's simply an attempt to motivate their bases to get out and vote. Throw the other party's (negatively spun) actions in your face right before elections as a scare tactic to get otherwise apathetic people out to vote. At least that's the best reason I can come up with for both sides to do it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Burns is on his way out, here in Montana, I think.
Let's hope so.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
He's... Kind of a nut. But I don't want to get too much into that. He's been behind in the polls, and the vibe I get is that the people of Montana (at least here in Helena) are tired of his antics.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Kerry apologizes after intense pressure from his own party. Couldn't see the need on his own? He does it in writing? Guess he couldn’t keep a straight face and do it in person.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
As I said earlier, pretty sure he didn't realize his comments could be misconstrued so badly, since anyone who knows anything about kerry would realize he'd never make the remarks that republicans would like you to think he made.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I was willing to seriously believe that Kerry meant to say that our soldiers were (not all, but largely) in the military because they were poor and uneducated, because that's a standard Democrat talking point now. ...
Woah, since when is that one of our talking points? Was I not at the meeting where this was discussed?
The Democratic Party has to approve talking points in meetings? If this is true, please tell us more.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Belle:
I should have said: my point wasn't a serious one. It was linked to a discussion about Virginia politicians and people's cynicism.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
BQT -
You're right. Energizing their own base is probably more important at this point than changing minds. But the timing sucks. The majority of people make of their minds in the last 1-2 weeks before the election, and the largest of that group are the so called "Security Moms." I think Kerry's gaffe will be off the front pages by the weekend, and whatever rises up to replace it will probably be the last things on their minds. But I have to wonder if this will really energize Republicans who weren't going to vote to begin with. Look at why they aren't voting, or why they are voting for Democrats, and I don't think Kerry's gaffe really negates those things.
Will B -
Heh. Still, I was wondering when it became 'common knowledge' that a Democratic talking point was that the military is full of dumb poor kids. I haven't heard that, except when it is RARELY talked about that teens in poverty stricken areas don't have enough chances to get out of their situation, and the military often presents the best chance, and talk about military recruitment tactics against the poor.
Both are valid points, but I don't ever remember it being a major point to phrase it that the military is full of stupid or poor kids.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kerry as president would have gotten us stuck fighting the Jihadist insurgents in New York City.
And if Al Gore was elected in 2000, 9/11 never would have happened.
Seriously, these unfounded, extremely broad what-ifs don't carry any weight. Saying it was not useful, so it was probably better left unsaid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kerry as president would have gotten us stuck fighting the Jihadist insurgents in New York City.
And if Al Gore was elected in 2000, 9/11 never would have happened.
Seriously, these unfounded, extremely broad what-ifs don't carry any weight. Saying it was not useful, so it was probably better left unsaid.
If only FDR had had the common decency to die in his first term, we would have been able to mop up Iraq in a month, and gasoline would still cost under a dollar, and I would have a pony.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You, you, you.
It's always about you!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Better yet, FDR should've helped the British hold Iraq, then we never would have needed to invade, and oil would be free.
AND you'd have a pony.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It would be a pink pony and I would name her florence!
Or buttercup. It depends on if LBJ would have had the common decency to artificially extend his lifespan so he could cold-cock Lucas and keep the Star Wars prequel from being terrible.
Good alternate-history star wars prequel being good = buttercup.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You sure are taking a lot of liberty with the phrase "common decency."
Force Lucas to skip the prequels altogether and make more sequels. Now THAT'S common decency.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
<< WARNING: Full of ribald adult language and sophomoric humor and Mark Hamill! >>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh.
It still creeps me out when Mark Hamill uses anything close to the Joker voice.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Still, I was wondering when it became 'common knowledge' that a Democratic talking point was that the military is full of dumb poor kids.
As you know, I never said anything about "kids" being "dumb" (or "stupid," as you said later).
I'll suppose "Heh" mean "I was just making that up about discussing talking points at party meetings."
--
It's an interesting rhetorical technique, paraphrasing the other party's words to make them something neither would agree with. It's a powerful way of changing the subject.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think you took that a little too sensitively Will.
First of all the "Heh" was because I thought you were taking a stab at Democrats for saying a lot of 'off message' stupid gaffes that get them in trouble, and I was chuckling because it was funny. Sorry.
Second, you said "uneducated," and I don't think it is dishonest to change uneducated to "dumb" for the purposes of this discussion. If it is, then sorry.
I wasn't trying to start something with you.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But I wanna see florence, or buttercup.