Barack Obama: Leader of next major religion?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Yes, heaven forfend that a candidate should actually get the electorate excited about the political process and their own involvement in it. That's not what politics is about. Politics is about letting a handful of privileged guys and gals do whatever the hell they feel like while we funnel all our impulse to debate and decide into voting people off American Idol.

I'm still agnostic about Obama. But surely the last thing this country needs is more political stupifaction from the electorate.

And as far as the "messiah" thing goes -- I think it's actually telling that, when Obama addresses crowds, his pronoun of choice is "we"; it's Clinton, by contrast, whose speeches talk about what "I" will do for "you," which is a much more messianic form of address.

[Dinner]

DinoDoc has gone wacky with his Obama hate.

[Barnabas]

This just means Obama is a charismatic leader with rock star appeal, something which sometimes happens with politicians.

stupid article

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Barnabas
This just means Obama is a charismatic leader with rock star appeal, something which sometimes happens with politicians.

stupid article

QFT

[Theben]

a big at this article and DD

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I haven't been clear. I am talking about teachers at the same school. Yes, there will be students who test well, but over time, you can tell whether the students are performing better then the historical average for your school, or worse.

You would expect, given a completely random distribution, that bad teachers would get the good students, and good teachers would get the bad ones.

High school teachers teach multiple periods. Each period, does differently on tests. Do you think that is entirely contributable to the efforts of the teacher? To some extent it is, but mostly it's not. First period usually doesn't do as well as third period. But even that isn't because of the teacher. That's more a result of the students themselves.

If you are going to have incentives you have to make the effort put in equal the result and reward. Teaching is just never going to be like that, and so incentives aren't going to help at all.

True, but look at it this way. In business, do people have an incentive to work for failing companies? No. That is motivation for the school themselves to improve because otherwise they won't. I think vouchers are a great idea, because that way the children can go to schools that are better, and the demand will reflect the overall performance. Failing schools, would then see fewer and fewer students, while successful ones would grow larger.

The problem isn't that some schools are bad, and others are good, but that students are stuck going to the school that they are assigned to just because of where they live.

So they move and who is going to be their teachers there? You are still going to have the same students and the same teachers. In fact, the teachers will probably be worse because a lot of them will quit. Teaching sucks because teachers don't get respect. Everyong thinks they are doing a crappy job and they aren't. They are out there giving it their all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Barnabas
This just means Obama is a charismatic leader with rock star appeal, something which sometimes happens with politicians.

Politicians in Latin America perhaps .

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Politicians in Latin America perhaps .

Watch old newsreels of FDR. Obama'd be lucky to get that kind of crowd reaction on his best day.

[Ben Kenobi]

High school teachers teach multiple periods. Each period, does differently on tests. Do you think that is entirely contributable to the efforts of the teacher? To some extent it is, but mostly it's not.

Thank you. That's all I'm saying a good teacher will get more out of their students then a poor one will, with two caveats, all other things being equal, and assuming a random student distribution.

You are right that it makes no sense to compare a shop teacher to a math teacher or an english teacher, but it is very rare that there is ever just one teacher of a particular subject.

First period usually doesn't do as well as third period. But even that isn't because of the teacher. That's more a result of the students themselves.

It usually isn't difficult to tell who are the best teachers.

If you are going to have incentives you have to make the effort put in equal the result and reward. Teaching is just never going to be like that, and so incentives aren't going to help at all.

I understand. I'm speaking as someone who wants to be a teacher, and would be very happy doing the job. I also understand how significant it is that a teacher who does a good job can be to her students.

It's extremely important, and right now, if you get the job you cannot be fired. This makes it difficult to get teaching jobs in the first place (because poor teachers stay on), and it robs the students, especially when the teacher realizes she has permanent job security.

So they move and who is going to be their teachers there? You are still going to have the same students and the same teachers.

No, why would you think that? Principals decide who works in their school, and they would decide which teachers would be teaching. I expect that the good schools would be in high demand and that once there is competition, that the principal would have his choice of teachers to teach there.

In fact, the teachers will probably be worse because a lot of them will quit.

Really. Go talk to a teacher some day. Teachers would love to have classes where the students are motivated to learn.

Teaching sucks because teachers don't get respect. Everyong thinks they are doing a crappy job and they aren't. They are out there giving it their all.

Some are, and some really don't care. It's like any occupation you have good apples and bad ones.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you. That's all I'm saying a good teacher will get more out of their students then a poor one will, with two caveats, all other things being equal, and assuming a random student distribution.

WTF?! That's not what I said. I said that the performance of the class depends more on the students efforts and abilitities than that of the teacher.

You are right that it makes no sense to compare a shop teacher to a math teacher or an english teacher, but it is very rare that there is ever just one teacher of a particular subject.

You can't use test scores to evaluate a teacher at all. Can a teacher make sure a student doesn't come to school drunk or stoned? Can a teacher make sure a student gets a good night sleep before the test?

It usually isn't difficult to tell who are the best teachers.

Well that's the attitude that the public has, but it's wrong. Teacher evaluation is very difficult and often times inaccurate. Some of the best teachers often times look like the worst teachers.

I understand. I'm speaking as someone who wants to be a teacher, and would be very happy doing the job. I also understand how significant it is that a teacher who does a good job can be to her students.

That's great! There is a shortage of teachers in the US. As long as you have the credentials you are sure to get a job if you are willing to move.

btw, I taught high school for 1 year. I also was a substitute teacher for 3 years. It wasn't the job for me.

It's extremely important, and right now, if you get the job you cannot be fired. This makes it difficult to get teaching jobs in the first place (because poor teachers stay on), and it robs the students, especially when the teacher realizes she has permanent job security.

Job security is an important benefit that teachers have. It's one of the best incentives to give teachers. If we didn't have job security for teachers many teachers that we have now would be doing other jobs, and not just the "bad" teachers.

No, why would you think that? Principals decide who works in their school, and they would decide which teachers would be teaching.

Usually other teachers (like the department heads) decide who the best teachers are for the job. The principal usually goes along with their suggestion. The principal at the school that I taught at was right out of college. He only had the required 1 year teaching experience. There's no way he was more qualified to know a good teacher than someone with 10 or 15 years teaching experience.

I expect that the good schools would be in high demand and that once there is competition, that the principal would have his choice of teachers to teach there.

That doesn't change the fact that you would still have the same number of teachers in the profession and they would still be teaching. But the point is that the students are most responsible for their performance, not the teachers. So the results would be exactly the same.

Really. Go talk to a teacher some day. Teachers would love to have classes where the students are motivated to learn.

Some are, and some really don't care. It's like any occupation you have good apples and bad ones.

No, teachers as a whole lot are very good. The problem is society.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Barnabas
This just means Obama is a charismatic leader with rock star appeal, something which sometimes happens with politicians.

“Barack knows that at some level there’s a hole in our souls.” This was a variation of language she had used earlier on the campaign trail: “Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, in Los Angeles: “Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

So we don’t have to work to improve our souls. Our broken souls can be fixed — by our voting for Barack Obama. We don’t have to fight or sacrifice to help our country. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our choosing Barack Obama. America can become a nation to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Barack Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25kristol.html?ex=1361595600&en=ff1368d38eb7f100&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[BeBMan]

I'm wondering how much "change" he really can do assuming he gets indeed pres....

[DinoDoc]

He'll fix our broken souls for a start.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
I'm wondering how much "change" he really can do assuming he gets indeed pres....

The question is whether he actually has the will for it anymore. Watching the debates it seems to me that he doesn't have it anymore, if he ever did.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

And as far as the "messiah" thing goes -- I think it's actually telling that, when Obama addresses crowds, his pronoun of choice is "we"; it's Clinton, by contrast, whose speeches talk about what "I" will do for "you," which is a much more messianic form of address.

This is a very important fact, in any situation Professional, personal, in all things. "We".