Sunday Open Thread

14 Mar 2010 Author: rikyrah

Good Morning.

As you go through your weekend with family and friends, don’t forget JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And always, have a peaceful day.

Tags: Open Thread

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

whiterosebuddy
Desiree,
Just didn't know her place.
Whether Givhans had called out the designer of her milkmaidfrock the night of the StateDinner or not, the individuals who attended the Dinner, knew the designer. They also knew that Desiree was upstaging FLOTUS in terms of the designer rags she chose being super expensive.
It is not whether FLOTUS has expensive rags, jewelry or if where they are made. What matters is the perception being created that FLOTUS cares about the economic hardship most Americans are experiencing. Desiree did not.
Desiree received the invites because she was Social Secretary and being wooed to obtain invites to the WH, the problem is that Desiree accepted invites that maintained a high public profile. I also do not think that Desiree calls POTUS & FLOTUS “michelle' and 'barack' anymore than Jarrett, Axelrod,Emanuel, Gibbs do.
While Desiree made some errors, she does not deserve to be pilloried. Her biggest error in judgment was accepting the Social Secretary position for it's historical significance, when she knew she could not live up to the low profile of the position which essential caters to FLOTUS' wishes.
Desiree, may be a fabulous hostess, dress glamourously and be adept at creating gracious events but that is when she knows she is also the top dog and unfortunately, she did not moderate that aspect. So, she will go down in history now as a historical footnote, just like Vanessa Williams the first black Miss.America.
I wish Desiree, the best and I am certain she will land on her feet
http://theothertwofifths.blogspot.com/ ProfGeo
by the time one pay for child care, maintenance of clothing, lunch, and transportation, there is a negative instead of positive.
——-
Yes, this was exactly the situation two jobs ago with one of the above relatives. Transport (gas) costs for sales calls went way over allowance.
morphus
We live in a world of deep inequality, and the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. We in the rich world generally agree that this is a problem we ought to help fix—but that the real beneficiaries will be the billions of people living in poverty. After all, inequality has little impact on the lives of those who find themselves on top of the pile. Right?
Not exactly, says British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson.
For decades, Wilkinson has studied why some societies are healthier than others. He found that what the healthiest societies have in common is not that they have more—more income, more education, or more wealth—but that what they have is more equitably shared.
In fact, it turns out that not only disease, but a whole host of social problems ranging from mental illness to drug use are worse in unequal societies. In his latest book, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, co-written with Kate Pickett, Wilkinson details the pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, encouraging excessive consumption.
The good news is that increased equality has the opposite effect: statistics show that communities without large gaps between rich and poor are more resilient and their members live longer, happier lives.
What Makes the Healthiest and Happiest Societies? Hint: It's Not Wealth
Epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson explains why it's equality, and not high income, that makes a society thrive.
Daisy Kingston
Sigh, I wish the majority of my clothing was made in the mainland USA.
Daisy Kingston
This is going to create another generation of children unable to compete in a global economy.
rikyrah
Will the ‘Real’ Michelle Obama Please Stand Up?
Posted By The Editors | March 1st, 2010 | Category: Hot Topics | 2 comments
By Jill Nelson
From 1950 to 1967, “What’s My Line?,” the longest-running game show in television history, consisted of a panel of celebrities questioning three contestants in order to discern which one was in a rather strange line of work. The big “reveal” came after the host intoned “Will the real _______ please stand up?”
One could ask that question of Michelle Obama, but without expectation of the satisfying “reveal” provided by the game show. Not only are the stakes way too high, but the object of our attention and affection is too smart, pragmatic, in control, and cognizant of history and her own recent experience to fall for the fleeting drama of full disclosure. Besides, she’s First Lady of the United States: she’s already won the game and the prize. The question now is how to use her position and power most effectively.
Until the advent of Michelle Obama, there had never been a time in American history when a black woman was absolutely central to the national dialogue. Even before Barack Obama’s election, the creation of the iconography of Michelle Obama was in full swing. What she did, said, didn’t do, didn’t say, wore or didn’t wear immediately represented both far more and far less than what was intended, reasonable, or even possible. As did her husband, Michelle Obama instantly became a screen upon which diverse communities could project, depending on their perspective, persuasion, and political agenda, their greatest aspirations or deepest fears.
For some, that projection was of the angry, uppity, vengeful black woman who resides in a part of American’s collective psyche. Updated by Michelle Obama to the 21st century and armed with degrees from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, she was no less frightening, and perhaps more so. This is the Michelle Obama illustrator cartoonist Barry Blitt sought to spoof on the July 21, 2008 cover of the New Yorker, in which she was portrayed with a huge afro, rifle and bandolier slung over her shoulder, wearing fatigues, combat boots, and giving her husband a fist bump.
Then there was the disarmingly honest, candid Michelle Obama, the very real black woman who transcended education, class, and sometimes race, during the presidential campaign. This woman told it like it is, not as she wished it would be or intended to make it. In doing so, she made more tangible her sometimes aloof, ethereal, politician husband.
http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2010/03/01/wi…
rikyrah
The Current Vatican's Death Throes I
14 Mar 2010 07:56 pm
What is happening in Germany with respect to the Catholic Church's sex abuse crisis right now is what happened in America after the first revelations came out of Boston. Instead of the Boston Globe, we have the Süddeutsche Zeitung. What's staggering to me is the Vatican response – which is the same as the Boston church's first reponse. Even now, even after all we have learned and seen this past decade, their response is to say it is primarily part of a campaign to vilify the Pope. Yes, despite hundreds of claims of sexual abuse against children, it's the Pope who's the real victim here:
In a note read on Vatican Radio on Saturday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said it was “evident that in recent days there are those who have tried, with a certain aggressive tenacity, in Regensburg and in Munich, to find elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse.” He added, “It is clear that those efforts have failed.”
Again, it is the reputation of the church and the Pope they care about first, not the welfare of children. In today's developments, the entire question of whether celibacy might have something to do with the stunted sexual and emotional development of priests (you think?) – let alone whether the repression and oppression of homosexuality contributes to psychological damage – has been ruled out of bounds of legitimate discussion by the Vatican:
Several prominent prelates — in Germany and at the Vatican — shot down any suggestion that the celibacy rule had anything to do with the scandal, a point echoed Sunday by the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. “It's been established that there's no link,” said the article by Bishop Giuseppe Versaldi, an emeritus professor of canon law and psychology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. “First off, it's known that sexual abuse of minors is more widespread among lay people and those who are married than in the celibate priesthood,'' he wrote. ''Secondly, research has shown that priests guilty of abuse had long before stopped observing celibacy.”
First: blame others before taking responsibility; second: a total non-sequitur. Has it occurred to Versaldi that the repressed, contorted sexual teaching of the church leads so many priests, gay and straight, directly into dysfunctional and, yes, disordered sex lives, alone or with others? Does he realize that forcing gay Catholic kids to hate themselves and then to seek refuge in a celibate priesthood as a cover for their unconquerable nature is just asking for later breakdowns and acting out, with teens and kids as the victims? Does he understand that straight men, denied any relationships with women their own age, can get stunted emotionally, fail to see women as equals, and are thereby less capable in many cases of proper pastoral care and sexual misconduct?
But what staggers me is once again the immediate, visceral circling of the wagons – when what is being revealed – again! – is a pattern of criminal abuse, aided and abetted by a powerful elite, led by the Pope himself. If this were a secular institution, the police would move in and shut it down.
We need a statement from the Pope explaining what he knew and didn't know about the abuse of children – and the protection of child-abusing priests – under his direct authority in Regensburg and Munich. His position does not render him above the law – or above taking personal responsibility for the crimes he was duty-bound to discover and prosecute and for the priests he did not remove from their positions of power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily…
rikyrah
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Cheating The Honest Men
by digby
Matt Taibbi watched an exchange between Janet Tavakoli and Rick Santelli in which the former tried to explain why the financial crisis wasn't precipitated by a bunch of poor people illegally obtaining loans and observed that Santelli wasn't having any of it:
While she’s saying all this stuff, Santelli, who is one of the fathers of the Tea Party movement, is shaking his head furiously, video-scoffing at everything she’s saying. When he finally does get a chance to speak, this is what he says:
Here’s my problem with this. It takes two to tango. You can’t cheat an honest man.
You can’t cheat an honest man? What the fuck does that mean?
That one's a doozy, for sure. Have you ever heard that before?
Taibbi then gets to the heart of the problem with the tea partiers and their cheerleaders like Santelli:
This whole scene sort of encapsulates what’s wrong with the Tea Party movement. The movement, and let’s admit this, has some of its roots in legitimate grievances about government waste and some not-entirely-inaccurate observations about what’s left of the American welfare state. Of course what resonates most with the suburban whites who mostly make up the Tea Party are stories about minorities and immigrants using section 8 housing, food stamps, Medicaid, TANF and other programs, with the Obama stimulus being for them a symbol of this ongoing government largess. The heat of the Tea Party movement comes from the racial frustrations that actually exist out there, in the real world outside New York and LA, as urban expansion and immigration increasingly throw white and nonwhite communities together, with white Tea Party types more and more often blowing gaskets over increased crime rates, declining school standards, and mislaid or wasted tax revenue.
That this perception that minorities are the prime or sole consumers of government entitlement programs is absurdly inaccurate — white people, for instance, are overwhelmingly the largest nonelderly recipients of Medicaid, making up 42.8% of the program’s rolls nationwide, compared to 22.2% for blacks and 27.9% for Hispanics — is beside the point. The point is that the Tea Party is built largely on this narrative of “personal responsibility,” where the central demons are unwed black and Hispanic mothers and absent black and Hispanic fathers, who are, let’s face it, not uncommon characters in the American melodrama.
Which is another subject for another time, but let’s just say this: the Tea Party movement contains a lot of people who are far more impressed by what they can see with their own eyes than with what, for instance, they read about. I’ve been to Tea Party events where global warming was dismissed by speakers who, without irony, pointed to the fact that there was snow on the ground outside. And while very few people have ever actually seen a CDO manager or a Countrywide executive, or were aware if it when they saw them, the Tea Party folks sure as hell have seen who their neighbors in foreclosure are.
The Fox/CNBC types have very cannily latched on this narrative to rewrite the history of the financial crisis. They know that Tea Partiers will go for any narrative that puts blame on poor (and especially poor minority) homeowners, because the idea of poor blacks and Hispanics borrowing beyond their means fits seamlessly with their world view. But this is a situation where poor minorities were really incidental to a much larger fraud scheme that culminated in a welfare program — the bank bailouts — that dwarfs the entire “entitlement” infrastructure. But the millions of people who are actually in the Tea Party movement seem to have absolutely no idea that their so-called leaders, the Santellis of their world, are shilling for tax cheats and crooks and welfare bums of the sort they would despise (perhaps even more than their black and Hispanic neighbors), if they could actually see them.
Unfortunately all the elites, political and otherwise, have a vested interest in keeping the rubes focused on the blacks and browns so it's hard to see the mechanism by which they will be revealed. And that's the whole purpose of right wing populism.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/cheating…
rikyrah
South Park: Tiger Woods Episode Will Begin 14th Season
NEW YORK — Golf clubs in hands or not, the kids of “South Park” are ready to take on Tiger Woods.
Creators of the Comedy Central cartoon have long since proven that no subject is sacred to them. So for the opening of its 14th season on Wednesday, the troubled golfer encounters Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman in their animated Colorado town.
“It's such an important issue in America right now – the sex addiction outbreak,” Matt Stone, who makes the series with partner Trey Parker, said on Friday. “We're all really concerned about him and hope he gets better.”
Sex addiction, the intersection of powerful men and willing women, late-night phone calls to the police and bad public relations gave them so much fodder they could have made an entire Tiger-centric season, Stone said.
Since the Peabody Award-winning show's first episode in 1997, Parker and Stone haven't worried about lines between good taste and bad if they can get a laugh. They mocked the Church of Scientology to the point of annoying Tom Cruise, and depicted Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag.
“There's a delicacy in talking about (Woods) that we don't have to worry about,” Stone said.
He wouldn't give many details about the episode, in part because he and Parker were still writing it on Friday. Stone said he was fascinated and disgusted by Woods' public apology, so it's likely that will be worked in.
“South Park” is airing its 200th episode next month.
“We can't even believe we're still here doing this,” he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/south-…
rikyrah
Ochocinco Lashes Out At ESPN On Twitter AGAIN
Chad Ochocinco blasted an ESPN host on Tuesday, writing, “its not my fault your girl is cheating on you, its your fault.” [sic]
It turns out that the Bengals receiver was not done. According to the Sporting News, Ochocinco's latest flurry of activity was prompted by a “SportsCenter” tease asking whether the Pro Bowlers two offseason TV shows are a “recipe for disaster.” On Twitter, Ochocinco responded by warning that “which ever Espn analyst dogs me for my off~season projects at 6 o'clock its going to be WAR!!”
The naked jogger proceeded to write that “it's on” and cautioned that “I am digging up all ESPN analyst history!” Then he turned to specific ESPN personalities. He wrote about NFL reporter John Clayton, “how dare you, your face is wearing thin on TV, looking like that character from HANINBAL that had those pigs, STFU.
Ochocinco even referenced a sexual harassment allegation at ESPN, tweeting about one personality at the network in particular. “I heard about your radio show negativity, why don't you worry about your sexual harrassment cases when at work!” Scroll down to see the tweets.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/ochoci…
rikyrah
Americans Killed In Drive-By Shooting At Consulate In Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Obama 'Outraged'
WASHINGTON (Associated Press) — Three people with ties to the American consulate in a drug-plagued Mexican city were killed in a drive-by shooting, a U.S. official said Sunday.
The department noted the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City has advised American citizens to delay unnecessary travel to parts of the Mexican states of Durango, Coahuila and Chihuahua.
Two American citizens and a spouse of a Mexican employee were killed Saturday afternoon, a U.S. official said. The official spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.
The White House said President Barack Obama was “deeply saddened and outraged” by the killings of those linked to the U.S. mission in Ciudad Juarez.
“He extends his condolences to the families and condemns these attacks on consular and diplomatic personnel serving at our foreign missions,” the White House said in a statement. “In concert with Mexican authorities, we will work tirelessly to bring their killers to justice.”
The State Department authorized U.S. government employees at six U.S. consulates in northern Mexico to send their family members out of the area because of concerns about rising drug-related violence. At least 18,000 people have been killed since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against drug traffickers in December 2006.
The State Department said it would allow family members of diplomatic staff to leave border cities of Tijuana, Nogales, Ciudad Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey and Matamoros.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/14/americ…
rikyrah
A Victory for Obama
From an unlikely quarter—Pakistan.
By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 12, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 22, 2010
President Obama gets much credit for changing America's image in the world—he was probably awarded the Nobel Prize for doing so. But if you asked even devoted fans to cite a specific foreign-policy achievement, they would probably hesitate. “It's too soon for that,” they would say. But in fact, there is a place where Barack Obama's foreign policy is working, and one that is crucial to U.S. national security—Pakistan.
There has been a spate of good news coming out of that complicated country, which has long promised to take action against Islamic militants but rarely done so. (The reason: Pakistan has used many of these same militants to destabilize its traditional foe, India, and to gain influence in Afghanistan.) Over the past few months, the Pakistani military has engaged in serious and successful operations in the militant havens of Swat, Malakand, South Waziristan, and Bajaur. Some of these areas are badlands where no Pakistani government has been able to establish its writ, so the achievement is all the more important. The Pakistanis have also ramped up their intelligence sharing with the U.S. This latter process led to the arrest a month ago of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the deputy leader of the Afghan Taliban, among other Taliban figures.
Some caveats: most of the Taliban who have been captured are small fish, and the Pakistani military has a history of “catching and releasing” terrorists so that they can impress Americans but still maintain their ties with the militants. But there does seem to be a shift in Pakistani behavior. Why it's taken place and how it might continue is a case study in the nature and limits of foreign-policy successes.
First, the Obama administration de-fined the problem correctly. Senior ad-ministration officials stopped referring to America's efforts in Afghanistan and instead spoke constantly of “AfPak,” to emphasize the notion that success in Afghanistan depended on actions taken in Pakistan. This dismayed the Pakistanis but they got the message. They were on notice to show they were part of the solution, not the problem.
Second, the administration used both sticks and carrots. For his first state dinner, Obama pointedly invited Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh—clearly not Pakistan's first choice. Obama made clear that America would continue to pursue the special relationship forged with India under the Bush administration, including a far-reaching deal on nuclear cooperation. But at the same time, the White House insisted it wanted a deep, long-term, and positive relationship with Pakistan. Sens. John Kerry and Dick Lugar put together the largest nonmilitary package of U.S. assistance for the country ever. Aid to the Pakistani military is also growing rapidly.
Third, it put in time and effort. The administration has adopted what Central Command's Gen. David Petraeus calls a “whole of government” approach to Pakistan. All elements of U.S. power and diplomacy have been deployed. Pakistan has received more than 25 visits by senior administration officials in the past year, all pushing the Pakistani military to deliver on commitments to fight the militants.
Finally, as always, luck and timing have played a key role. The militants in Pakistan, like those associated with Al Qaeda almost everywhere, went too far, brutally killing civilians, shutting down girls' schools, and creating an atmosphere of medievalism. Pakistan's public, which had tended to downplay the problem of terrorism, now saw it as “Pakistan's war.” The Army, reading the street, felt it had to show results.
These results are still tentative. Pakistan's military retains its obsession with India—how else to justify a vast budget in a small, poor nation? It has still not acted seriously against any of the major militant groups active against Afghanistan, India, or the United States. The Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani group, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and many smaller groups all operate with impunity within Pakistan. But the Pakistani military is doing more than it has before, and that counts as success in the world of foreign policy.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234926
lexusOakland
I teach for Phoenix (on ground, not on line) and can tell you that as faculty we spend enormous amounts of time remediating students who come unprepared. We serve students who because of jobs, families, etc. cannot attend mainline colleges. Phoenix in my area has currently instituted a “success coaching” program, where coaches work with students who are struggling. An enormous amount of energy is being put into helping students, many from failing urban school systems, be successful and obtain a degree. As far as master's students, I also teach in the Master's in Counseling program, and I can tell you the state requirements for licensing are rigid, and the curriculum more than meets the requirements. Phoenix has small classes that provide a mentoring kind of relationship between students and faculty. Many students who wouldn't have had access to higher education are given the opportunity. No student in my classes passes without doing the work… don't believe the press. Traditional education institutions have issues with an open enrollment that gives all students a chance. About 75% of my students over the past five years have been single moms, who simply could not afford traditional education. Most of my students have been either African American, or Latino. I have formed long term relationships with many following graduation, and many have gone on to master's programs both at Phoenix and at traditional universities and done quite well. Lastly, we are regularly audited and must meet strict requirements in order to keep accreditation Don't believe everything you read!
Guns3000
lexus, I don't want to turn this into a “dump on UOP” session” and like I said I got a few credits there. The problem is they let any tom dick and harry attend that “university”. There were people in my class that has no business in high school not even mentioning a university. We had to do group presentations the quality of some of the other students' work was abysmal. How they were passing their classes was a mystery to me. Now I will say in some of the classes(online) the workload was far from light(A paper a week). The Department of Education has noted that the graduation rate for UOP is a stunning 16%. That's what happens when you let anyone with a pulse in your classes. Now like you said they give you everything that you need to “pass.” Computers, tutors and counselors are always available but in your classes sometimes you are surrounded by the lowest common denominators.
rikyrah
Obama chooses 1st young appeals court nominee
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – Sat Mar 13, 8:46 am ET
WASHINGTON – Thirteen months into his presidency, Barack Obama finally gave liberal supporters the kind of judicial nominee they had sought and conservatives feared.
Goodwin Liu, 39, is an unabashed liberal legal scholar who, if confirmed, could become a force on the federal appeals court for decades. There's talk that in time, the Rhodes Scholar, former high court clerk and current assistant dean and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, could be the first person of Asian descent chosen for the Supreme Court.
“I can easily imagine him” as a high court nominee, said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Liu supporter and dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine.
Obama's choice of Liu for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco drew quick and vociferous criticism from conservatives. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, described Liu as “far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.”
For the first time, Obama seemed to be taking a page from the playbook of recent Republican presidents who nominated conservatives in their 30s and 40s with the expectation they would have enduring influence in setting policy on the federal bench.
Whether a string of younger, more ideological nominees will follow from the Democratic president is unknown. Of the four Obama nominees announced since Liu's selection on Feb. 24, three are their 50s and the other is a 45-year-old career prosecutor.
The payoff of the approach taken by President Ronald Reagan is evident today. Young judges appointed to the bench in the mid-1980s remain powerful forces on appeal courts in Chicago, Cincinnati, Richmond, Va., and San Francisco.
In an era when appeals court experience is virtually a prerequisite for the Supreme Court, five of the nine justices became appeals court judges before they were 45. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy were nominated to appellate judgeships before they turned 40, though Senate Democrats blocked Roberts' nomination near the end of George H.W. Bush's presidency.
First, though, Liu has to overcome anticipated Republican stalling tactics to win Senate confirmation.
Only six of Obama's 15 appeals court nominees have been confirmed even though the president's choices have seemed designed to avoid “high-profile fights,” in the words of Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice.
Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance For Justice, agreed that Obama has mainly chosen moderate federal trial judges for appeals courts.
“Unlike Reagan and the recent Bush, he certainly has not made ideology the hallmark of his judicial selection program,” Aron said.
Seventeen Reagan nominees took their appeals court seats before they were 45, but the president did not immediately reach out to younger choices. The pace of those appointments quickened later in Reagan's first term, and especially, at the start of his second.
If there is a hallmark to Obama's choices to date, it is diversity, former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig said. Obama has nominated five women, five African-Americans, two Asian-Americans and a Hispanic among his appeals court choices.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_go_pr…
lamh32
I know sometimes ya post music videos, so I wanted to make a request.
Gladys Knight & The Pips!!!
I'll even start us off with a video. When I tellyou that my aunt literally, sang this song everytime we had ANY sort of “talent show” or karaoke contest at family gatherings, I kid you not, she as Gladys and 3 of my uncles (or whatever males were available) as the pips, TORE IT U!!
Gladys Knight and the Pips: Neither One of Us
lexusOakland
hey Guns… two things — the latest academic report (http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/publications/ac…) shows a 26% – 36% completion rate for associate and bachelor's degrees, and 55% – 63% for graduate. That being said, I agree with your frustration about some of the level of work by some students. However, this is not just a Phoenix phenomenon; I had dinner last nite with an instructor from a local, well respected, community college, and another from a major university. Both were decrying the level of unpreparedness of the current student population. They can't write and critical thinking? dream on… These students are a product of a school system that passes them in order to not admit failure on their own part to teach them; I'm not sure how they pass entrance exams. I have had groups of high achieving students, low achieving students, and mixed groups. The mixed groups are the hardest, especially for students like yourself. But I continue to believe that if I can get even one student to the next level, my time is well spent. I do, however, agree that for the higher achieving students like yourself, who end up in a group that is ill prepared, it is not a recipe for success; and is a dilemma I struggle with regularly. So we don't totally disagree… I just have a problem with the tendency to blame Phoenix for students' failings, when the blame really belongs with a school system that can't even seem to teach students that a sentence must have a subject and a verb to be a sentence! I love teaching, and chose Phoenix because of the open access for students. As a result I deal with the both the successes and the failures on a regular basis. I don't know what the solution is, especially in California when academic budgets are being decimated. It's only going to get worse.
rikyrah
thank you lamh32 for the suggestions.
If I Were Your Woman is one of my favorites.
Guns3000
Thanks for your inside input on UOP. The instructor's were actually pretty good there and I can tell you are definitely in that group. I hope you pass your concerns up to UOP management because there is a lot of false information about UOP online and elsewhere. My issue wasn't so much with the material but more with the fact it seemed like they let anyone with a pulse in the university. And the reason I guess was for monetary reasons. If they tightened up a few things over there the result would be a lot better not only for the students but for UOP as well.
Angelar
Just got back to my emails…you cracked me up! Oh boy…you are so right…we don't manufacture much in America these days.
Angelar
Actually never heard of Sneed until this article I posted.
By the way, I had a biopsy of my nose a few days ago…seems there is some kind of virus growing in my nose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I should hear in the next few days whether or not it is cancerous.
Right now I am scared about the cancer threat….but, also my doctor said regardless “it” has to be cut out and could cause some “disfiguring” so I'm not feeling too happy these past few days.
Hey! any doctors out there following JJP who might have some insight into what I am facing?
thanks
Angelar
Whoa! Cindy McCain and the $$$ she spent on clothes not to mention her designers…..girl you are tres tres smart! Loving it!
drawteel
I didn't say “only” anywhere in my comment Morphus. Everyone should be up in arms about. I guess you and the 3 folks that agree with you are not.
drawteel
Thank you, that was my point.
morphus
Don't go there. IF you have followed any of my posts you would know I've posted numerous articles and made comments for the past six months on this very subject. My question still stands.
ch555x
Yeah, I've been hearing bits and pieces on this story. Whatever groups I recall hearing about who are against this are getting their stuff together as we speak…just give it time!
ch555x
LMAO!
Heck, I can bypass the closet to some of my food, electronics, utensils, etc. and still run into non-American made stuff…
Pingback: African mango plus
Pingback: Google
Pingback: naruto
Pingback: bad credit loans
Pingback: eye exercises to improve vision
Pingback: reebok zigs
Pingback: XL Doors
Pingback: Washing Wool Blanket
Pingback: Coping Mechanism Stress

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

Who We Are

Cheryl Contee aka "Jill Tubman", Baratunde Thurston aka "Jack Turner", rikyrah, Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal", B-Serious, Casey Gane-McCalla, Jonathan Pitts-Wiley aka "Marcus Toussaint," Fredric Mitchell, Keith Owens, Anson Asaka, Barbara Moore, Deborah Small, Lisa Coffman, Michael Patton

Special Contributors: Rashad Robinson, Marvin Randolph, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, James Rucker, Rinku Sen, Adam Luna

Technical Contributor: Brandon Sheats

Jack & Jill Politics