Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (9951)	3/6/1998 3:19:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

Somebody better tell Susan, the one who wants to "be Frank": exchange2000.com exchange2000.com There you'll find some very convoluted account of a South Carolina lawyer named Few who claims Starr tried to cover up perjured testimony in a case involving General Motors. The matter has to do with a GM engineer who wrote a memo in 1973 about auto safety. In a lawsuit involving Few, Starr argued that a 1981 document about the engineer's memo by a lawyer for GM could not be introduced as evidence because it was protected by "attorney-client privilege." Starr won the argument by unanimous decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. But that was federal court. Now there's another case against GM in a Florida state court, and Few has used the occasion to level the absurd accusation that Starr obstructed justice by making the "attorney-client" argument in South Carolina. If that were true, the Fourth Circuit would be a co-conspirator in the obstruction, since it supported Starr. This proves Few's charges don't even deserve to be bird-cage liner. So why was America reading about it? Because, as The New York Times put it, "President Clinton's aides today circulated a batch of memos critical of Mr. Starr's performance as a lawyer ..." In other words, Few threw some mud at Starr, and almost instantaneously the White House was faxing the mud around Washington newsrooms. And just as the mudslinging against the independent counsel's office involved not only Starr but his deputies, other lawyers for Kirkland and Ellis who have nothing to do with the Whitewater investigation are now getting unjustly spattered. Now, who is this guy Few? All you need to know about him is that he is a trial lawyer. The most reliable source of funds for the Democratic Party in the 1990s has been the membership of the American Trial Lawyers Association. The trial lawyers need the Democratic party to block much-needed reforms of the tort system by which injury and damages are determined. The Democrats in the White House now need the trial lawyers to participate in their desperate effort to blow smoke and create confusion. The trial lawyers pay; the White House sends it around. Now, how about the vastness of the left-wing conspiracy? Watch this space; more to come. Joe Conason, call Hillary and warn her. nypostonline.com Susan had stated "it is not surprising you would attempt to mischaracterize and distort the fact sequence...I refer you to..." I say that it is hardly shocking that it fails to surprise anyone that Susan has mischaracterized and distorted the fact sequence and then claimed that I did. Perfect Clintonism.

To: Grainne who wrote (9951)	3/6/1998 8:51:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

I would also argue that even though some of the innovations in education--like whole word reading in place of phonics, which actually worked--are eventually discarded, That's a good one for a laugh, Christine, and it makes no sense at all to try to claim that "whole word reading worked", and to claim it was in innovation is just pure nonsense. The goal of an education should be to foster a lifetime love of learning, not to cram children full of rote facts until their imaginations die. I submit that "rote memorization" is the core of "whole word reading", and that is why it failed. I learned reading by phonics, and I submit that because of this, I became a naturally good speller and reader. I really feel sorry for people who have had to read books without having had the benefit of phonics. Still waiting for a reply to my e-mail to you. I understand if you have no answers, but I thought you would have some comment. DK

To: Grainne who wrote (9951)	3/6/1998 8:59:00 PM
From: WalleyB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>The goal of an education should be to foster a lifetime love of learning, not to cram children full of rote facts until their imaginations die. How ever one gets the facts into the head of a child eventualy the information provides the fuel for the imagination as well as the desire to accelerate. Else, what would they use?

To: Grainne who wrote (9951)	3/7/1998 8:08:00 AM
From: Jack Clarke	Respond to of 20981

>>OFF TOPIC (I guess)<< Christine, You wrote: " Catholic teachers make less money(you simply need a degree to teach there, whereas public school teachers need an extra year)," True, and my feeling is that this is one of the negative factors in education, which I spoke about earlier: Message 3198291 I think one of the problems with the public education system is that the "education establishment" got control (by political pressure) of the right to teach, so that no matter how well one is qualified in a subject, that person cannot teach in a public school without an "Education" degree. The parochial and private schools, mercifully, are not bound by these "union card" tactics. I do agree with you that it is not a simple subject, and I don't mean to suggest that there is a simple answer to the problem. The current lack of quality public education also has much to do with profound societal changes, pervasive television and hence lack of reading (which requires more active and abstract processes), and a general decrease in quality of teachers. Some of the latter could be made up by marked increase in salaries, of course, but we are now at the point where a second generation is without proper education (by my definition, admittedly), so the teachers themselves have not been taught, and we must start all over again. No amount of money spent on computers, audiovisual aids and such bells and whistles will teach basic skills necessary to prepare a child for a lifetime of learning. Jack