Recent Comments:
No Child Left Behind -- what's the problem? {ParentDish}
Aug 31st 2008 5:33PM SKL-
The article mentioned a very valid point, which I will reiterate since you seem you have missed it. NCLB uses funding as leverage to force teachers to teach in a way that will raise scores on aptitude tests. The problem is that more and more focus gets put on getting a good grade and just getting through the test, while less and less gets put on learning relevant and interesting information. I can guarantee you that however important good test-taking skills are, it will almost always serve the students better to teach them how to be curious, how to love learning, and to give them information that, being relevant, will actually be retained after the test is done.
If you don't believe me, check out some studies that have looked at the real level of improvement- or lack thereof- due to this emphasis on tests.
Jury duty fraud: How scammers use civic involvement to rob you {WalletPop}
Aug 22nd 2008 7:52PM I've heard the phrase that "jury duty is only for those not smart enough to get out of it."
It's really a shame, though, because smart people are exactly the ones we need on a jury. I studied court processes extensively in college, and it turns out that highest number of mistaken convictions come from jury trials... and that jury convictions are the most difficult to overturn.
That's why I won't actively try to avoid jury duty. If I make an effort to be meticulous and thorough, perhaps I can be the sort of person I would want on a jury if I were ever wrongly accused.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Trailer! {Cinematical}
Jul 30th 2008 12:06AM I want to make sure it's clear that you're perfectly entitled to your opinion- I just want to represent the other side of the spectrum. For myself, OotP was my favorite adaptation, followed by numbers 3 (almost a tie), 4, 1, and 2 respectively.
The reason? First, it carried on the ingenuity first evidenced by "Azkaban", meaning that while it was true to the spirit of the books, it was not slavishly obedient. A book translated exactly to the screen will inherently lack effective pacing, and possibly dialogue (depending on the writing style), just because the mediums are so different.
Two, it remedied the problems #4 had with balancing all the action and big special effects with quiet moments and meaningful dialogue.
Three, I felt that the acting had more heart in it. I have been particularly impressed with Daniel and Rupert as they've refined their acting styles over the years.
There's always room for improvement, but I for one hope that David Yates keeps going in the track he began.
Having sex on a beach can get you jail time {Gadling}
Jul 10th 2008 6:42PM I find it interesting that everyone is so focused on dissecting the morality of her actions. But I think we're missing the big picture...
1. Sanctimonious lectures on morality only serve to demonstrate that you have not walked in someone else's shoes. It shows a narrow band of thinking- ask yourself enough "what if" questions and you can find a reasonable explanation for any action. It may not be correct, but shouldn't we consider the possibility that we are NOT omnicient, that we may not know all the circumstances?
2. As soon as we make stupid mistakes ourselves, don't we want people to give us the benefit of the doubt? If you dropped a plate as a child and broke it, you wouldn't want to hear an adult say that you are obviously careless and you have no respect for other people's property. You'd want them to recognize that it was a mistake. Maybe a stupid one, but it doesn't define you as a person, does it?
A little compassion, people. It can't hurt.
"Keep your words soft and tender, because some day you may have to eat them."
Nicole Kidman to pose nude {ParentDish}
May 22nd 2008 10:17PM I disagree. I believe that morality is conferred on an action by a combination of the intent behind it and the result from it. If her intent is to share her joy (and her belief that a pregnant female body is beautiful), I see no problems there. If the result is a photograph which people can choose to see or not, I fail to see a moral difficulty.
I do not and will not believe that morality (or the worth of a parent's influence) is defined by how well it adheres to the esoteric behavioral code of a single culture.
Nicole Kidman to pose nude {ParentDish}
May 22nd 2008 10:05PM Wow. Those are a lot of assumptions there (at least, it seems that way... I'm having a little trouble making out your points due to a lack of grammar and punctuation).
Assumption #1: either the readers or the posing women are pitiful and "without a life" (unclear antecedent, so not sure to whom you were referring).
Until you show some proof to back up your statement, that is an opinion. Because from where I'm standing on the sidelines, it seems equally obvious that they can have a life and pose for nude photos; it's just a different kind of life.
Assumption #2: if these ladies were emotionally well, they would not need to pose for these photographs. You added something about "sick voyeurism", but that would actually only make sense if you were talking about the people viewing the photos, not the ladies. (Hint- if you want anyone to listen to you, make sure they can figure out what you're saying.)
I don't know if you have any training in psychology, but mental health is not always connected to discrete actions. Usually, it's the motivation behind the actions that counts. So it may be that some people pose nude out of some emotional deficit, but we can't assume that just because they posed. I can back up this point of view, so until you show proof for yours I'm afraid I'll just consider it your opinion.
Happy thinking.
Claudia Schiffer topless in Vogue Germany {Style List Blog}
May 16th 2008 9:50PM Apparently, people have diffent ideas of what constitutes "self respect", because I don't think she lacks self-respect at all. I might think that if she did it out of desperation or self-loathing, but there's no evidence for that. You, however, have just demonstrated that a portion of the population is unable to grasp that there could be another equally valid point of view on how self respect is defined and expressed.
I respect that your perspective on self-respect, and probably morality as well, differs from mine. If it works for you, great. But please don't assume that everyone else has to adhere to your beliefs. Even if you aren't aware of it, that attitude comes across as incredibly arrogant and self-righteous. Just express your opinion AS AN OPINION and leave everyone to their own conclusions, please.
Claudia Schiffer topless in Vogue Germany {Style List Blog}
May 16th 2008 9:40PM So all that's wrong with America is foreign in origin? I guess that explains our recent foreign policy... and the disastrous results thereof. Now, perhaps this is only my opinion (which is all any of us have), but it seems that whenever our country's actions become particularly mulish, in that we pursue a course that has been repeatedly debunked by multiple sources, and when we ignore input from all quarters in favor of doing what we want (because, of course, what else matters?), THAT is when our country goes downhill. Standing up for our values is all well and good, but not if we're supporting something out of stubborness or a desire to be different. That whole "Lone Ranger" thing only works if the values we're upholding deserve the consideration.
By the way, whatever else you say about foreigners, they tend to spell English better than most Americans. Your post is case in point (you could stand to work on grammar, too).
PD*poll: Should dad be banned from son's graduation ceremony? {ParentDish}
May 13th 2008 11:28PM So for all of you sitting on your moral high ground (I refer to those who say that he is a rapist... double underlined with exclamation points... and doesn't deserve to go to the graduation), I get that the bottom line to your comments is that people can never change.
That's a harsh way of looking at things, because if you make a mistake once, you're done for. Nobody will ever accept you again, nor should they, because, of course, there's no way you could have changed your ways. There's no allowance for repenting or remorse, which essentially categorizes people as "eternally bad".
To me, that's a pretty idiotic way to judge life. Read a little psychology, and you'll find that people tend to fulfill the expectations others hold about them. If people who have been convicted of rape are forever hounded and spit upon, there is no incentive for them to repent. Why should they? Nobody will thank them for it, and in fact they will be prejudged and sneered at for life.
Besides, a single criminal offense at 17 is, in most cases, not a predictor of future behavior. Again, neuropsychology will tell you that the teenage boy's brain has not fully developed at 17, and guys all over prove this by doing really dumb stuff at this age. He doesn't have a pattern of offenses, just a single incident.
Someone may point out that, even if there's just one, it was a serious offense. Very well, I will concede that... IF it was indeed rape in the commonly understood sense. For anyone who knows how the legal system works, it is quite possible that the charge was more severe than the crime, or that extenuating circumstances were ignored in court, or any number of things. Until I know for certain, I refuse to condemn someone based on incomplete information.
But one last thing... have you never made a mistake and wished you could take it back? Ever done something and wondered later how you could be so incredibly STUPID? When that happens, don't you want people to see that you can learn your lesson... and earn forgiveness? For most people, it's just environmental factors or dumb luck that their mistake wasn't serious. Until you've walked in his shoes and you know his complete story, give the guy a break. He spent the last 20+ years earning that.
Discuss: When Does Fandom Go Too Far? {Cinematical}
Apr 17th 2008 3:40AM I think there's another line which fandom sometimes crosses, as evidenced by J.K. Rowling's court battle. And that line, to me, has to do with whether I've got any perspective left about the characters or stories I like.
For instance, it's one thing for me to like reading Harry Potter or watch Lord of the Rings. I can even take it to the point of quoting my favorite characters every other sentence and annoying my family with trivia I've gathered. I would also say that intillectual debates inspired by these characters and stories are just fine.
But I'd draw the line to obcession when I become so attached to the material that I become rigid in my opinions and lose my ability to SEE it as it is. I'm not talking rose colored glasses, I'm referring to stalkers, people who get violent over disagreements about fantasy material, people who abhor any material that is not their designated favorite (regardless of its actual value)
... and people who feel some sort of proprietary connection to the material, such that they would go to court rather than relinquish it. (Although I grant you this last one could be more of a monetary issue.)
This is, of course, my opinion, and I welcome opposing viewpoints to reply (when they are expressed in a polite manner).
- 6 Comments
- 3 Comments
- 2 Comments
- 9 Comments
- 2 Comments
- 1 Comment
- 2 Comments
- 7 Comments
- 2 Comments
- 3 Comments
- 2 Comments
- 1 Comment
- 3 Comments
- 3 Comments
- 1 Comment
- 2 Comments
