165 Comments:
Wonderful that a kid could be talented in music or art, but on the main, it doesn't give him or her the skills needed to get ahead in life. Practical knowledge and reason will help more.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 11:08 PM on March 20
It's time you stopped self-identifying as a liberal, Rat. Your claims to that self-identification are absurd at this point. I'm not sure what the appropriate designator for you is, but there must be a political party for the people who live in a cold world where everything come down to vague, cranky ideas of what is and isn't practical.
You're not a kid having to find his way through the world, Max.
Easy for you to say.
And I don't know what that has to do with politics.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 11:17 PM on March 20
Yes, of course, you're right. What could funding for educational programs possibly have to do with politics?
Too much, sometimes.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 11:23 PM on March 20
Rat, there is value in arts education even for students that don't necessarily pursue careers in the arts. Thinking creatively, expressing oneself articulately, and working in collaboration are just some of the skills that arts education gives to all students, and can be utilized in whatever paths the students follow.
»» Submitted by »»» ceci at 11:49 PM on March 20
Perhaps The Rat is just a sock puppet for The Bud Jr?
Rat is art averse. People who are art averse see everything as being about taxes, money and ROI.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 7:26 AM on March 21
Rat is also art anagramatic.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 7:29 AM on March 21
The Rat loves art.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 7:46 AM on March 21
Wonderful that a kid could be talented in music or art, but on the main, it doesn't give him or her the skills needed to get ahead in life. Practical knowledge and reason will help more.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 10:08 PM on March 20
I'd love to see a link to an article offering evidence or study results to back that statement up.
»» Submitted by bartleby. at 7:57 AM on March 21
Here's one
"PATRICIA PLUMMER wants to put the state's high school students on a smoother road to college. The chancellor of the Board of Higher Education, Plummer is proposing a new curriculum called MassCore. It recommends that high school students take four years of math, four years of English, three years of science and of history, and two years of a foreign language. MassCore also calls for AP classes, a senior project, online courses, and other enhancements.
"Critics argue that not everyone needs four years of math. But this is a weary dodge. It is increasingly a world of high-tech jobs. And while many workers may not use quadratic equations, they will need the underlying skill that algebra teaches: how to learn challenging technical material."
and
"The goal is to ensure that high school seniors are ready for college work and won't get stuck in remedial college classes."
»» Submitted by The Rat at 8:07 AM on March 21
And to show how eminently fair The Rat is:
Here's an opposing view
But you should note the man is chancellor of a charter school that seems to devoted to art and music.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 8:14 AM on March 21
First, "get ahead in life" = "get rich". It is truly hard to believe I know, but education for the sole purpose of making money cheapens education and shortchanges our future scientists and financiers. We could very easily train a generation of meat computers, but creativity is required in order to make any true advances.
Plus, just because Patricia Plummer wants to concentrate on math and science at the expense of art and creativity does not mean she will succeed at what she wants to accomplish.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 8:40 AM on March 21
That first article does not address your initial statement.
»» Submitted by bartleby. at 8:44 AM on March 21
education for the sole purpose of making money cheapens education
Do you know for certain that that is the "sole purpose?"
Seems to me, a wealth of knowledge could come from four years of math, four years of English, three years of science and of history, and two years of a foreign language.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 8:48 AM on March 21
Seems this whole debate is based on extremist views. If science and math are good then art is bad, or if art is good then science and math must be bad. Balance and reason seem to have lost.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 8:50 AM on March 21
Why only three years of science but four years of math?
Anyway, aren't kids who are good at music also good at math generally? And haven't we all learned the lesson that you don't need to actually finish college to be rich and successful?
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 8:51 AM on March 21
First, "get ahead in life" = "get rich".
How about "get ahead in life" = "don't be a burden to the taxpayers"
»» Submitted by Milt at 8:57 AM on March 21
Because of course, everything comes back to taxes.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 8:58 AM on March 21
Unless you don't pay any.
»» Submitted by Milt at 9:02 AM on March 21
I have to see my tax man today. We don't need discussions like this.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 9:04 AM on March 21
"Unless you don't pay any."
LOL!
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 9:05 AM on March 21
Plus, just because Patricia Plummer wants to concentrate on math and science at the expense of art and creativity does not mean she will succeed at what she wants to accomplish.
What's to say that they're mutually exclusive. I had 6 years worth of science classes in high school, yet I also took choir for a year and was in band and orchestra all 4 years. What I didn't have was study halls.
»» Submitted by Elizabeth at 9:10 AM on March 21
The problem as I see it, is that politics has been so grossly infused in public education, that we have lost sight of what it should be. Some think that it should be a training ground for workers. Personally, I find it wrong headed and impractical.
What high school should be is a discovery of aptitudes. You learn the basics of reading, writing, and math in your lower grades. When you reach high school, you attempt to find out what you are good at and what you like to do. Someone who has low math aptitude is not going to be helped by taking 4 years of it. It is like asking someone with zero musical talent to take 4 years of choir. It is quite unproductive for that person who may become disruptive in class.
If high school was structured to give the most options for exploring aptitudes, then people who excel at science would get plenty of science and those that excel at metal work would get plenty of metal shop, etc.
I agree with Douglas. But by the same token, college shouldn't be used to simply get a credential to satisfy a human resources department that you are safe to hire for that administrative assistant job. It's a waste of time and money for everyone concerned.
»» Submitted by Milt at 9:30 AM on March 21
I haven't used AP calc or physics since high school, and I'm on my way to an advanced degree. The class I use the most in my daily life? Auto shop. Maybe we should require that. Actually, I've used my high school art and design training a fair amount, too.
»» Submitted by yepnope at 9:36 AM on March 21
NCLB is a horrid program, but I think arts funding has been getting cut for much longer than NCLB has been around.
In this day and age when schools are getting more money than ever and more money per student who are we supposed to believe?
My feeling is kids that are exposed to art develop some non tangible skills like creative thought and abstract thinking. Also, they make some really kick ass drawings for my fridge and oddly shaped clay cups.
I keep waiting for someone to make the arguement that maybe art is best taught at home.
I don't know if I want my kids studying Warhol when everyone knows the study of Dali's Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening is more pertinent to life.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 9:44 AM on March 21
The Rat loves art.
Do a Google search for "The Rat," "MnSpeak" and "Walker."
The Rat may love some art, but if it's non-representational, he thinks it's a con.
The Rat must be of the age where he's getting ready to cast off the old cloak of his childhood-based liberalism. Welcome to adulthood, Rat.
»» Submitted by Milt at 9:49 AM on March 21
It is like asking someone with zero musical talent to take 4 years of choir.
except being a good singer has zero application in real life. unless you're an actual singer, or maybe a kindergarten teacher. whereas 100% of functioning adults need math skills regardless of their vocation.
it's a shame we can't fund both, but $7 billion per year should be enough. and now they want much, much more. ugh.
»» Submitted by cubbie at 9:51 AM on March 21
As a student in a somewhat "practical" program - or at least is related to "practical" things (physics students often end up working as engineers), I'll say this: even as Americans fail on international math and science tests, we're still leaders in the academic world. And I think that's because of things like art and music. Doing good research involves more than knowing calculus - although that helps. It requires creativity. That's what keeps us relevant - Americans tend to be creative and have a relatively broad base of knowledge and skills, and I think that's why international students, who whip us on every standardized exam, still come here to go to the best universities in the world.
»» Submitted by »»» jeffk at 10:00 AM on March 21
Also: I've also long been confused about "liberal" rat. If his posts were signed as "mazasapa", I wouldn't know the difference - he's every bit as cranky and myopic.
»» Submitted by »»» jeffk at 10:01 AM on March 21
A recent Economist article stated that countries are pouring more and more money and resources into math and science education out of fear for our children having to compete in a global economy. The United States spends more money on math and science education and the results? The United States students are the worst in the world in math and science.
»» Submitted by tinnie at 10:04 AM on March 21
This thread is dovetailing with the Expelled thread. As a country, we can't simultaneously want our children to be world leaders in science and also want them to believe the world is 6,000 years old.
I took an art class in college and I found it immensely rewarding, not because I thought I would use it in my career, but because it was fun to take a class that was focused on broadening my perspective and tapping into a skill that, while mainly talent driven, can be taught and developed. Until that class, I would say that I couldn't draw or paint, but I did learn some fundamentals, and, had I followed up with it, could have turned into a rewarding hobby. Also, I played the cello for 15 years, and thanks to my orchestra teacher in high school getting me free private lessons, I was able to get a substantial music scholarship. To say that I didn't learn any practical skills that would get me a head in life is kind of harsh. While I may not make art my career, I'd like to think it's made me a more well rounded person.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 10:10 AM on March 21
Because of course, everything comes back to taxes.
It always is about taxes. When people demand more tax money they drain my income. Every one wants more money for their program but a moral judgment is made by those that demand my money to fund their program. I could car less about arts funding. If someone has an aptitude for something they will find a way to make it happen, it is not the taxpayers job to make the self-actualized that is the parents problem. Society can't afford what they continue to wast on education now.
»» Submitted by swandog at 10:11 AM on March 21
I'll say this: even as Americans fail on international math and science tests, we're still leaders in the academic world. And I think that's because of things like art and music.
Actually, it probably has more to do with the fact that for years, the US system was a strong magnet for foreign students. Unfortunately, since 9/11, it has become so much more difficult for students to get here, that top students are deciding to study elsewhere, and our programs are beginning to slip in the rankings.
Another factor is that other countries are increasing government funding into research programs, while the US is cutting back or at best holding steady.
And, yet another factor, we are starting to lose top researchers in the biomedical sciences because other countries don't impose the same number of restrictions on research (think embryonic stem cells).
Students and researchers are going to migrate where they are welcome, funded, and free to devise their own studies.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 10:16 AM on March 21
A recent Economist article stated that countries are pouring more and more money and resources into math and science education out of fear for our children having to compete in a global economy. The United States spends more money on math and science education and the results? The United States students are the worst in the world in math and science
That is an average we still have a vibrant economy due to the fact that we produce enough individuals to continue to move our economy forward. Not everyone is going to be successful someone won't be the important thing is that enough make it but everyone making it is not a requirement for a society to function.
»» Submitted by swandog at 10:16 AM on March 21
except being a good singer has zero application in real life. unless you're an actual singer, or maybe a kindergarten teacher.
That's not true. You learn to work cooperatively on a team, which is a huge skill needed in today's workforce. You also learn how to control your voice and timing, which is needed if give presentations regularly.
Also, most of us in "real life" have hobbies. These may include singing in a church or community choir, karoke, or singing in the shower or to a child. Plus, it increases appreciation for music, which is important to society also.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 10:29 AM on March 21
Also, this is going WAY off the deep end, but my sister gave me the book The Medium is the Massage and it states that our educational system is from the 19th century. Bleh. Time to update.
»» Submitted by tinnie at 10:30 AM on March 21
Keep in mind as well that one of America's biggest export is popular culture. People behave like arts education is somehow useless, but it's a massive boon to our economy.
"Time to update."
Well, that book is over 40 years old. I imagine schools have changed a bit since then.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 10:33 AM on March 21
Swandog, Arts education would have done wonders for you.
Your run on sentances are giving me fits.
»» Submitted by tinnie at 10:33 AM on March 21
the US system was a strong magnet for foreign students
This is true, and I feel fortunate to work with brilliant international students. But I mean specifically that people born and educated in the U.S. are still relevant.
»» Submitted by »»» jeffk at 10:34 AM on March 21
Kurtis, ya it's still revelant to today... scarily so.
Shakespeare is over 400 years old. He can't entertain us today at all.
That makes oh so much sense.
»» Submitted by tinnie at 10:39 AM on March 21
You learn to work cooperatively on a team
i learned that in t-ball
You also learn how to control your voice and timing, which is needed if give presentations regularly.
you have got to be kidding.
choir, basketball, drama and the chess club all add value and should be available to students. but our "educators" can't find a way to do it with $7 freaking billion per year, so something's got to give. or blow the system up and start over again, which gets my vote.
»» Submitted by cubbie at 10:45 AM on March 21
I remember when I was young and full of beans and Marshall McLuhan.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 10:46 AM on March 21
Keep in mind as well that one of America's biggest export is popular culture. People behave like arts education is somehow useless, but it's a massive boon to our economy.
American Idol is now an argument for increased arts spending?
»» Submitted by cubbie at 10:48 AM on March 21
"Swandog, Arts education would have done wonders for you. Your run on sentances are giving me fits."
Unless it was an intensive course on William Faulkner.
»» Submitted by »»» ceci at 10:51 AM on March 21
American Idol is an English import. No Country for Old Men is an argument for increased arts spending.
Or an advanced linguistic class that pontificates the language of an undiscovered alien dialect buried deep inside the Earth's mantle.
»» Submitted by tinnie at 11:01 AM on March 21
C'mon. Who wouldn't take that class?
i learned that in t-ball
how does that dispute that a person learns it in choir also?
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 11:09 AM on March 21
Also, most of us in "real life" have hobbies. These may include singing in a church or community choir, karoke, or singing in the shower or to a child. Plus, it increases appreciation for music, which is important to society also.
So taxes and spending should go up so you can feel good. I'm so glad that I can pay for your "real life" hobbies.
»» Submitted by swandog at 11:15 AM on March 21
KC is right, as usual. I got all of my public speaking skills from choir. Posture, projection, enunciation, and the all important don't-scratch-when-people-are-watching. This stuff is absolutely critical for my line of work, and it is painful watching people try to pick it up after years of bad habits.
»» Submitted by yepnope at 11:15 AM on March 21
So taxes and spending should go up so you can feel good. I'm so glad that I can pay for your "real life" hobbies.
I hope you do not enjoy a single thing you learned in school outside of your job.
I personally still enjoy reading about history, sports, writing, and cooking, all things I learned in school.
School isn't just about preparing a child for work, it is about preparing a child for life. That means how to balance a checkbook AND how to have fun so you don't kill all your coworkers.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 11:23 AM on March 21
I have a feeling swandog enjoys very little.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 11:27 AM on March 21
Cutting funding for HS sports would probably save far more education dollars than the paltry sum art and music programs get. But I suppose going to a football/track meet/basketball game is a lot more fun than seeing a play.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 11:35 AM on March 21
But I suppose going to a football/track meet/basketball game is a lot more fun than seeing a play.
Well, it is for me.
I find mimes pretty boring.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 11:37 AM on March 21
"So taxes and spending should go up so you can feel good."
So far everything you have said in this thread is just sad. And a beautiful argument for arts funding.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 11:38 AM on March 21
hope you do not enjoy a single thing you learned in school outside of your job.
I personally still enjoy reading about history, sports, writing, and cooking, all things I learned in school.
School isn't just about preparing a child for work, it is about preparing a child for life. That means how to balance a checkbook AND how to have fun so you don't kill all your coworkers
I enjoy things but have learned most of what I know on my own. I am well educated and paid for my education. I am sick of paying for people who feel entitled to feeling good at other peoples expense. I could car less how good you feel that is your deal why should the tax-payer pay for people to feel good. School is to prepare people to be productive in society. The real problem is that school has become something other than a basic education. It has become a social service delivery device that is unsustainable in the long run. People need to learn to be self-sufficient vs dependent on school and government.
Cutting funding for HS sports would probably save far more education dollars than the paltry sum art and music programs get. But I suppose going to a football/track meet/basketball game is a lot more fun than seeing a play
It might be a great idea to cut them and move them into the private sector why should I pay for Johnny to kick a soccer ball.
»» Submitted by swandog at 11:45 AM on March 21
I think it's strange that MN requires HS students graduate with an art credit, but allows for each district to measure "passing" differently. As long as arts programs are considered fluff and not held to the same standards, it will always see the largest cuts.
And I don't think the article was talking about raising taxes so I'm not sure why there's that focus. I took it that they were talking about reallocation.
Arts programs teach kids to think abstractly and about balance. To color outside of the lines, to sing out of tune, to dance like Elaine all while coming up with the next cure of a disease which has yet to be discovered.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 11:49 AM on March 21
And I don't think the article was talking about raising taxes so I'm not sure why there's that focus. I took it that they were talking about reallocation
Reallocation is another word for I need more money so I do not have to choose one thing over another.
»» Submitted by swandog at 11:53 AM on March 21
School is to prepare people to be productive in society.
And a major factor is for a person to be happy and healthy. The arts can do that. PE that teaches, and gets kids interested in activities that they can participate in for life can also do that.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 11:54 AM on March 21
I could car less how good you feel that is your deal why should the tax-payer pay for people to feel good.
People who feel good and are happy are more productive at work and have better home lives. This keeps them off of all the social service programs that you hate so much.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 11:55 AM on March 21
And besides, there are lots of jobs in the arts. Product design, advertisement, web design, architecture, the food industry, and the clothing industry are all examples of jobs/industries that heavily rely on artistic folks. We make them take advanced math, why shouldn't they make us take art?
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 12:01 PM on March 21
When Swandog is lying sick in a nursing home dying of old age, I hope no nurses wipe his feeble ass.
Why should anyone wipe his ass? Everyone should wipe their own ass!
»» Submitted by tinnie at 12:01 PM on March 21
The United States students are the worst in the world in math and science.
Comparing average US scores against small homogenized nations that are smaller than Minnesota is faulty assessment.
School is to prepare people to be productive in society.
I disagree. School is about getting an education. Life is about learning to be productive in society.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 12:03 PM on March 21
Life is about getting an education. You learn 1,000 times more out of the classroom than in it.
»» Submitted by a teacher at 12:07 PM on March 21
Fine, but school is life for most 5-17 year olds.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 12:15 PM on March 21
Wow. "A teacher" argueing that school is not the place for education.
How asinine.
Look it up in the dictionary 4 out of 5 usages of "education" are directly related to schooling.
Are you an art teacher?
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 12:19 PM on March 21
Swandog: Are you sure you moved far enough out in the country?
Even if taxes were raised to fund arts programs, the increase is pretty minimul to you. If you're really mad about the taxes you pay - start screaming about all of the things that you pay for that go to making your city pretty.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 12:19 PM on March 21
minimul = minimal
I loved my art and music teachers in grade school - they weren't nuns. My music teacher used to tap his batton on our backs to get us to sit or stand up straight or on top of our heads to get us to look up.
We thought we were so funny when we all came to music class with footbal helmets on. Ok, we were 10.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 12:31 PM on March 21
I can't imagine how boring school would be without artistic outlets such as art, music, and theater classes...which most are electives anyway. Outside of being required to take 1 art class your entire HS career, what's the big deal (BTW, when I was in school, college and HS, I was required to take 2x as much PE as art)?
Life skills not withstanding, extracurriculars and the odd required art class can be fun and enriching, especially for kids with families who cannot afford (both in time and money) private lessons.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 12:38 PM on March 21
Republicans hate Arts funding because anything challenging or beautiful is a threat to their fear and hate-based world view.
Just as teaching Science (i.e. another form of Truth) is a threat.
Much easier to use their easy lies to control the masses.
It's a fact.
Here's a fact. I would bet that more scientists and engineers vote republican. Because they're logical people.
»» Submitted by Mr. Wizard at 2:06 PM on March 21
Hmmm... I wouldn't bet on that, Mr. Wiz nor would I state it as fact.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 2:18 PM on March 21
Here's a fact. I would bet that more scientists and engineers vote republican.
That's a hypothesis, not a fact. Now you need to come up with data (facts) to support that.
I can't speak for the engineering filed, but I know very few Republican scientists. Not that they don't exist, but they're not as common.
While that's only my observations, it's observations from a lifetime of growing up among scientists, being educated among them, working with them, and being one myself. That has also held true in academia or private industry.
I don't have them in front of me, but I believe that most polls show that MS and PhD holders skew Democratic.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 2:29 PM on March 21
I am a scientist and an engineer. In the private sector. Everyone I work with have libertarian views and vote republican. Every. one. The only people I know in this field who vote democrat are academics. That's a fact.
»» Submitted by Mr. Wizard at 2:34 PM on March 21
The five peeps with whom you work does not a good representation make, Mr. Wiz.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 2:41 PM on March 21
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 2:51 PM on March 21
Everyone I work with have libertarian views and vote republican.
So you want the government off your back but don't care about your rights. This is a perfect example of the lack of common sense in sectors of the scientific community!
Let me guess. The Big Bang Theory is everyones favorite show also!
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 2:54 PM on March 21
That's an anecdote. I'm in the private sector as well. While I do know of some Republicans, most are Democrats, even our CEO.
I don't have time to look for a more recent one, but here's a Pew Center poll (2004). Scroll down to the Partisan trend table, they break down party affiliation by education level. The only group that leans Republican is the college graduates. Post Grad leaned Democratic, albeit not by much. I would guess that the post 9/11 findings have returned to about their pre-9/11 status.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 3:03 PM on March 21
"That's a fact."
No, that's an observation.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 3:50 PM on March 21
Apparently personal observation = fact in some alternate reality.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 3:51 PM on March 21
And "The Big Bang Theory" is one of my favorite shows.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 3:52 PM on March 21
Before we all get too smart for our own pants; an observation can be a fact.
So when Mr.Wizard says "I am a scientist and an engineer. In the private sector. Everyone I work with have libertarian views and vote republican. Every. one. The only people I know in this field who vote democrat are academics.That's a fact."
It could actually be a fact and an observation.
It's crazy the things that aren't mutually exclusive in this world.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 3:54 PM on March 21
Not only are Lefties smarter they are Sexier and Funnier and Healthier and have better hygiene as well.
It's a fact!
JACC: I get what you're saying, but Mr. Wiz's statement of fact doesn't really support his original statement:
Here's a fact. I would bet that more scientists and engineers vote republican. Because they're logical people.
»» Submitted by Mr. Wizard at 1:06 PM on March 21
And then went on to give anecdotal support of everyone he/she knows is, therefore majority must be.
Fact? partially, but the conclusion is observation/opinion/deluded.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 4:12 PM on March 21
You take the good, you take the bad,
you take them both and there you have
The facts of life, the facts of life.
Theres a time you got to go and show
Youre growin now you know about the facts of life,
The facts of life.
When the world never seems to be livin up to your dreams
And suddenly youre finding out
The facts of life are all about you, you.
It takes a lot to get em right
When youre learning the facts of life. (learning the facts of life)
Learning the facts of life (learning the facts of life)
Learning the facts of life.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 4:14 PM on March 21
@Cat - Agreed. His first statement was purely speculation.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 4:15 PM on March 21
Before we all get too smart for our own pants; an observation can be a fact.
Can be, sure. In practice, however, a single observation or can be subject to too much noise to be useful for making that determination.
Mr. Wiz' problem is that he's trying to make a broad conclusion from a poorly sampled anecdote.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 4:15 PM on March 21
Nobody should have disputed the factual accuracy of his observation, just it's usefulness in forming broad conclusions. Heck, based on the people I know, absolutely nobody voted for George Bush in 2004. So much for personal observation as a generalizable sample.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 4:24 PM on March 21
Good lord, JACC! How did that ever get in your brain?
All I can think of now is Tootie on rollerskates.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 4:24 PM on March 21
Nobody should have disputed the factual accuracy of his observation, just it's usefulness in forming broad conclusions.
Nobody disputed his observation.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 4:33 PM on March 21
OK, beat a dead horse moment:
We don't know that the observation is factual. Just because he/she says it is, doesn't make it fact.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 4:36 PM on March 21
What the hell. He's an anonymous poster on a messag board!
»» Submitted by tinnie at 4:38 PM on March 21
Well, I guess it depends on how one reads "No," following the statement, "it's a fact," or interprets the word "partially." But I was merely saying that the whole "is a fact is not" was a boring digression and it's even more boring and digressive to argue about whether or not anyone partook in the first argument.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 4:40 PM on March 21
Tru dat, Tinnie, but nevertheless has struck a nerve with us.
And really, it has evolved into not even being about him/her.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 4:42 PM on March 21
Of course that "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 4:43 PM on March 21
Clinton's statement made perfect sense in context and wasn't that hard to follow.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 4:49 PM on March 21
"Clinton's statement made perfect sense in context and wasn't that hard to follow."
Oh well, I've always liked Clinton and still want him to run again. Lying about a BJ just played into the (R)'s hands. I wish he had just said "Yeah, I boinked her. What of it?"
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 4:56 PM on March 21
He pretty much said that in the same paragraph you cited above. It boiled down to, "Is there something go on between you and that Lewinsky girl?"
"Depends on what you mean by 'is.' Yeah, there WAS something going on, but there isn't now."
Also, Al Gore never said he invented the Internet.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 5:03 PM on March 21
Seriously, I'm not trying to start anything here. I knew of the context in which he said that, but I also remember "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Where he should have said. I did it. It was a mistake.
Like I've said. I like Clinton. Just don't like how he handled that.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 5:23 PM on March 21
Oh, I agree with that. I just think the sound bite is taken out of context.
I myself never cared much about the Lewinski stuff, though, because I'm neither Bill's wife or her dad.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 5:26 PM on March 21
I didn't care much about it until he lied under oath to cover it up. If the man had just stood up and yelled, "You're damn right I got blown in the Oval Office! What of it? Every one of you motherfuckers woulda done it too!" I would've shrugged and gone about my bid'ness.
That said, he did some damn good things for the country. Could've accomplished even more had Yitzhak Rabin not gotten knocked off.
»» Submitted by »»» richg at 5:41 PM on March 21
I wonder what he might have accomplished for improving arts funding to the schools?
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 5:49 PM on March 21
Well, indirectly he might've done quite a bit. No Child Left Behind was the death knell for the arts, gym, history, and virtually anything else that isn't being directly tested under the act. Somehow, I doubt Mr. Clinton would've pushed for legislation like that.
»» Submitted by »»» richg at 5:55 PM on March 21
If the man had just stood up and yelled, "You're damn right I got blown in the Oval Office! What of it?
See, the problem was, it wasn't really about the morality or propriety of having sex in the white house that he was facing. If that was all it was, he probably could have said just that. But he knew that Lewinsky was identified as a material witness in a sexual harrassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. Jones' lawyers would show that Jones' claim had merit because Clinton had a "pattern of behavior" of hitting on young subordinates. By admitting he had sex with Lewinski he was admitting that this pattern existed.
Contrary to all the urban myth about the republicans tring to impeach him for "having sex," that was all spin to buy sympathy from the public ... because the real charges had to do witness tampering (trying to get Lewinski to deny the relationship for purposes of the lawsuit defense) and lying in federal court for the same reason.
In the end, Jones passed a lie detector test, Clinton paid Jones $750,000 to settle the suit, and to this day, the clueless masses have been conditioned to think that the scandal was aboutr getting a BJ in the oval office when it was really about the president being a sexual predator, perjuror and witness tamperer.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 8:11 PM on March 21
That said, he did some damn good things for the country.
When you think about it, all he really ended up doing was signing republican legislation.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 8:12 PM on March 21
No Child Left Behind was the death knell for the arts, gym, history, and virtually anything else that isn't being directly tested under the act.
No Child Left Behind is really the work of Ted Kennedy. It was Bush's naive attempt to work with the democrats to "get something done" as he said he would in the campaign when he said he was "a uniter, not a divider."
Conservatives have always hated it because it represents too much control by the federal government over local public schools. If it was up to conservatives, the department of education would be shut down. It's not the role of the federal government to get involved in public education.
The No Child Left Behind act, while noble-sounding, was doomed to fail because 1) it was designed by Ted Kennedy and 2) the teachers union would see that it failed.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 8:18 PM on March 21
"I wonder what he might have accomplished for improving arts funding to the schools?"
I'd vote for him again.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 8:20 PM on March 21
@maz pontificates "When you think about it, all he really ended up doing was signing republican legislation"
So when current Republicans rail on the Clinton years are they actually railing on that Republican congress?
As far as the the Jones/Lewinsky stuff there's some serious truth to that statement.
Though, I still find it Ironic that Gingrich was pumping the press with one set of values while pumping his mistress with another.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 8:31 PM on March 21
But see, it wasn't really about "values," Gingrich's or anyone else's. That was the spin from the press who tried to defend Clinton by making the republican's case look hypocritical. But no one said it was about the sex except the press and the Clintons.
That said, I wanted him to resign because my belief is/was that any decent man, when caught in such a predicament, would have. Even that snake Spitzer resigned for far less offenses.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 8:37 PM on March 21
But no one said it was about the sex except the press and the Clintons
Well, them and me. I had to say it was about the sex; I was young,keeping it loose, and full of juice, but I get your point.
Now would the Senator Mazasapa care to answer my question or would he like to confer with his counsel?
So when current Republicans rail on the Clinton years are they actually railing on that Republican congress?
In regards to @maz pontificating "When you think about it, all he really ended up doing was signing republican legislation"
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 8:57 PM on March 21
When I've heard republicans "rail about the Clinton years," it's been about his role in national security. I mean, he was in office during the go-go 90s with an economy being driven by new technologies such as cell phones, email and the internet. It hit its peak during 1999 when virtually all business bought new computer hardware in anticipation of the "millienium bug" that had them all scared to death their businesses would crash when the clock struck 2000 if they didn't buy new gear. Even then, the unemployment rate wasn't any better than it is now (4.6%) interest rates were about the same, and the stock market was 30% less. And all that economic activity caused the tax revenues to soar, balancing the budget. So it wasn't about the economy.
It was about getting attacked 5 or 6 times by terrorists and not doing anything about it. Turning down the opportunity to arrest bin Laden because Clinton couldn't think of anything to charge him with, selling pardons to undesirables like Mrc Rich in return for donations, selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom for political donations, "no controlling legal authority" etc. etc. etc. Basically the stench of sleeze.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 9:14 PM on March 21
So you think paying a woman for sex (tens of thousands of tax payer's dollars, BTW) as less worse than lying about a blow job? Wow.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 9:26 PM on March 21
I rest my case.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 9:28 PM on March 21
You forget that Spitzer only owned up to it because he was caught, which makes him no better than what Clinton did. Sure he's sorry...now.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 9:41 PM on March 21
"It was about getting attacked 5 or 6 times by terrorists and not doing anything about it. "
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
If you see the origins section, it's quite filled with the things Clinton did to, including ordering air strikes on Afghanistan to try and kill Bin Laden. I'm quite sure someone could turn up a recording of Rush Limbaugh claiming he only did it to divert attention away from Monica Lewnisky.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 9:42 PM on March 21
A live link to the above.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 9:43 PM on March 21
Ugh. There goes discussions based in facts, and we return once again to discussion based on unsupported Republican talking points.
Imagine that.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 9:50 PM on March 21
They are supported by intelligent design engineered bridges.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 9:57 PM on March 21
lol
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 9:59 PM on March 21
Then of course, came the humiliation associated with the incident in Mogadishu.
Many believe that provided the final evidence to bin Laden that the U.S. was a paper tiger and could be punched repeatedly without retaliation due to the political cowardice of the inhabitant of the white house.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 10:03 PM on March 21
All right, enough talk about Clinton. Back to the topic: The current state of arts funging
Back to the topic: The current state of arts funging
The State of Denial. Art is relevant.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 11:33 PM on March 21
Back to the topic:
Republicans make shitty party guest and worse artists.
The only vocations they should enter into are:
1.) Prison Guard
2.) Meter Maid
3.) Whatever the hell it is The Rat does.
3.) Whatever the hell it is The Rat does.
He does me.
»» Submitted by Gives Liberals a Good Name at 12:06 AM on March 21
"Back to the topic: The current state of arts funging"
Max thinks the arts are fungible.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 8:20 AM on March 22
"Max thinks the arts are fungible."
The arts are substitutable?
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 4:33 PM on March 22
Republicans make shitty party guest and worse artists.
I have to disagree. I think Joe Dowling has an amazing artistic vision AND would be a good party guest. While I wish he were a liberal, his republican status doesn't take away from what he does for the arts community here.
And, I know there are lots of rich republicans who give money to the arts.
And my step-uncle is a Republican and a hell a fun at a party.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 5:43 PM on March 22
Of course, I did have to kick my step-uncle out of my house at our post-wedding reception party at our house. He gave my drunk great aunt a muscle relaxant, and that wasn't pretty.
But really, I also had to kick out my parents and his wife, they weren't invited and had crashed the party.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 5:44 PM on March 22
And, I know there are lots of rich republicans who give money to the arts.
Even though I'm not really a rich republican, I've built several (ok, three) websites pro bono for starving artists to enable them to sell their art.
But I would never approve of taxpayer-funded grants to do the same thing. If art can't succeed in the marketplace on its own, then interested individuals should pitch in and help them out by buying their art, or (as in the case of some really rich republicans) giving them private grants. The first floor of the maz palatial manse is wall-to-wall sioux and chippewa art.
It's not the role of government or the taxpayer to subsidize any products of any kind. And that goes for you sodbusters too.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 7:20 PM on March 22
I think Joe Dowling has an amazing artistic vision AND would be a good party guest. While I wish he were a liberal, his republican status doesn't take away from what he does for the arts community here.
I have to disagree. I think the fact that Dowling is a Republican taints his so-called vision and cast the Guthrie into an entirely different light for me. I will not patronize that place with him in control and I have several friends - life long theatre lovers- who feel the same way.
On balance, I believe Mr. Dowling has done much more harm than good.
I sincerely believe that he is driven solely by greed rather than a sense of artistic purpose. He makes a hell of a lot of money running the Guthrie and clearly that is what motivates him.
He's simply an opportunist and I think he laughs himself silly knowing that there are people like you, KC, who will so willingly apologize for his beliefs while staunchly supporting him at the box office.
Unfortunately for you friend, the joke is on you.
It's kinda like our friend Maz here. If any one of us liberals were on fire he wouldn't cross the street to piss on us.
Why should we be any different?
I'd cross the street to piss on you, rainy.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 7:34 PM on March 22
raindog, can you give any examples or facts that Dowling is doing harm to the Guthrie or the theater scene? Of course not.
While I do believe in funding arts, especially in schools, I don't believe that Republicans don't believe in hate the arts. I think they like art as much as their Democrat counterparts. They just believe in a different way of funding them. they are wrong, but to say they are purposefully trying to hurt them is not correct.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 9:27 PM on March 22
Maybe Raindog thought that the Guthrie's showing of Warm Beer Cold Women, was a Dowling plot aimed at her.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 9:48 PM on March 22
I think this is a condescending, nonsensical piece, by the way, that says more about the author's ignorant prejudices than anything else.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 10:39 PM on March 22
raindog, can you give any examples or facts that Dowling is doing harm to the Guthrie or the theater scene? Of course not.
Wrong.
Read this and WEEP:
Old Guthrie Demolition
And Dowling's support of Bush/Cheney gave us THIS.
Oh and regarding this lil tidbit:
They just believe in a different way of funding them. they are wrong, but to say they are purposefully trying to hurt them is not correct.
Oh REALLY!?!?!
Ahem, surely you jest:
National Endowment for the Arts budget cuts should be met with outrage, not complacency
Cut all PBS funding, Republicans urge
Piss Christ
Bush's new economic plan cuts funding for arts, education
Bush Wants to Gut PBS Funding
Suffice to say:
Supporting the Guthrie = Supporting Bush/Cheney Cultural and Human Genocide.
Hope you like this years' Scrooge!
I rest my case.
I have to disagree. I think the fact that Dowling is a Republican taints his so-called vision and cast the Guthrie into an entirely different light for me. I will not patronize that place with him in control and I have several friends - life long theatre lovers- who feel the same way.
your loss, Miss Myopic.
»» Submitted by grote at 11:10 PM on March 22
If there was no government subsidy, would the arts still exist? Of course it would. So let artists and the theatre and PBS compete in the marketplace like everything else in this society.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 11:14 PM on March 22
Ugh. Speaking of myopia.
"So let artists and the theatre and PBS compete in the marketplace like everything else in this society."
Wow.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 9:57 AM on March 23
I'd like to see public radio and public broadcasting stand on its own for no other reason than it means one less piece of ammunition for the Republicans.
That's what the pledge drives are for, people. You can get Bob Dylan compilations and DVDs about That Guy who lived in the woods of Alaska until he was in his 80s.
Then guys like Maz would have to find something else to get indignant about. Sadly it wouldn't take long.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 10:38 AM on March 23
I'm not indignant. I'm just asking why the government should be picking winners and losers in a marketplace? I know they do it all the time but it's wrong.
What should make one news organization (PBS) immune from market forces that the others have to face? Why should WCCO have to employ people to sell ads while another station across town doesn't have to?
Why should one form of entertainment be subsidized by public dollars when other forms are not? I'm not indignant, I'm just asking you all to think logically (for once), that's all.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 10:57 AM on March 23
What should make one news organization (PBS) immune from market forces that the others have to face?
So are you even against the concept of PBS operating by donation, "from viewers like you."
I'm not indignant. I'm just asking why the government should be picking winners and losers in a marketplace?
Let's talk about Halliburton's no-bid contracts on another thread.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 11:09 AM on March 23
I'm not against PBS operating by donation. That's an honest way to generate revenue. I have a problem with the 15% or whatever it is (it's still in the millions) that they get as a pure subsidy from the taxpayers.
Halliburton's no-bid contract was a different situation.
1) It was a needed service (provided our armed forces with a wide array of logistical support from food services to fuel delivery, and
2) Halliburton was the only u.s. company that had the experience and resources to do that sort of huge logistics job. The only other candidate companies were a canadien firm and a french firm.
Given the circumstances (911), most taxpayers would have been outraged if the american company didn't get the contract.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 11:17 AM on March 23
I think this is a condescending, nonsensical piece, by the way, that says more about the author's ignorant prejudices than anything else.
On the subject of ignorant prejudices:
I'm not indignant, I'm just asking you all to think logically (for once), that's all.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 11:27 AM on March 23
Jesus Christ Maz. Every time you post here anymore it send shivers up my spine. So we need no bid contractors overcharging taxpayers by billions and funneling those profits into sham overseas offices to avoid paying taxes and avoid providing benefits to US citizen contractors. These same contractors who are not bound by the same (or any) rules that our own military men and women are held to. But we do not need unbiased news and information, which costs us what 10 - 15 million?
Gotta love your priorities, man. Gotta love 'em.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 4:21 PM on March 23
I don't know you, yoder. I don't know if you're some naive college kid or someone who has just lived a very sheltered life. But good god, man ... "shivers up your spine?"
contractors overcharging taxpayers by billions and funneling those profits into sham overseas offices to avoid paying taxes and avoid providing benefits to US citizen contractors.
Just because you read something on the internets, doesn't make it true. If the GAO discovers any wrongdoing on the part of any defense contractor, they get to the bottom of it, fine the contractor, ban them from any further work, and move on. And I'm sure it happens everyday.
When I was navigating submarines we had a sign on the console that said "Remember, this equipment was provided by the lowest bidder." I know all about defense contractors.
But we do not need unbiased news and information, which costs us what 10 - 15 million?
What makes you think that PBS news and information is unbiased? It's not "controlled" by GE the way MSNBC is, for example, but it is controlled by the republican government that you hate so much, after all.
I don't want government sponsored (read, controlled) news and information.
Hope this doesn't shiver your spine too much.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 7:07 PM on March 23
Now who is naive? Really?
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 8:02 PM on March 23
Since you served on a sub, that means you "know all about defense contracts"? I served on a reconnaissance plane in the Middle East and I don't "know all about defense contracts". I do, however, get my information from more places than Faux News.
And if you truly do not want government sponsored "read, controlled" news, then mainstream media should definitely be off your list.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 8:17 PM on March 23
Your hatred of and misinformation about PBS is quite interesting.
»» Submitted by »»» yoder at 8:19 PM on March 23
I don't think you have to consider that the heavy hand of government is leaning on PBS and NPR news content, Maz. That's a ridiculous assumption that leans toward paranoid if you actually mean what you're say -- which has to be taken into consideration whenever I read what you right.
The audience is so small, I don't know if the Democratic Party or the Republican Party spends much time considering the demographic.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 8:31 PM on March 23
So, on an unrelated topic, has anyone seen Planet Earth?
My boyfriend owns the DVDs and we absolutely love it. His birthday is coming up soon though and I was thinking about getting him The Blue Planet series, which I haven't seen any of. Does anyone have any idea if The Blue Planet is as good, or any other suggestions for gifts for twentysomething males?
Can anyone predict what the next sensation over something genuinely-awesome like Planet Earth will be?
»» Submitted by so... at 8:52 PM on March 23
His birthday is coming up soon though and I was thinking about getting him The Blue Planet series
Gawd, no! You want to get him Blue Planet because YOU haven't seen it?
any other suggestions for gifts for twentysomething males?
Twins opener tickets.
Tuesday April 1, Twins v Los Angles Angels of Anaheim.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 9:03 PM on March 23
Rat: you are incorrect; the Twins home opener is on Monday, March 31 vs. the Angels.
And for crying out loud, if the boyfriend liked Planet Earth, then he'll probably like Blue Planet too.
»» Submitted by biggpappa at 9:40 PM on March 23
Stand corrected on the opener. I was just looking at April.
if the boyfriend liked Planet Earth, then he'll probably like Blue Planet too.
If he likes fish, the trout catch and release opener is April 1.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 10:01 PM on March 23
If I were a Twins fan, I'd pay top dollar for a seat up close in the HR porch for the home opener...for Torii Hunter's up-close and personal return to the Metrodome outfield.
As it stands, i'm just getting good seats for 1/2 the Tiger games.
»» Submitted by grote at 10:11 PM on March 23
I'd like to see standing ovations for Hunter in that series.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 10:18 PM on March 23
We're sitting out in Torii territory for the third game in the Angels series... we're missing the home opener this year (it'll be the first one I missed in seven years).
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 6:38 AM on March 24
Well thanks for the suggestions, but there aren't two seats next to each other left for the home opener... His birthday's April 4 anyhow, so we'd be celebrating early too.
»» Submitted by so... at 1:44 PM on March 24
»»» = registered user. click on it to see the user's profile.
|
|
|
