For whatever reason people have chosen to upload classic television shows to Youtube and for even less of a reason I have chosen to watch some of it. TV sucked back then. It had no edge, no meaning, was overtly religious and the fact that the show had no long term storyline meant that nothing exciting could happen and reasonably be concluded inside a 20 minute time slot.
One of the shows I have been watching recently is Family Matters. It is the perfect show to watch while studying since you only need to watch about 30 seconds an episode to know what is happening and watching anymore is actually detrimental to your enjoyment. Anyways one of the things I noticed is that Judy (Jaimee Foxworth - who is actually a porn star now FYI), the youngest sister, was just written out of the show without warning. If I were writing the show I would have had a conversation like this later on...
Harriette (mom): I sure miss Judy around the Christmas season
Laura (older sister): Yeah, to bad she got herself addicted to heroin and was stabbed to dead on skid row last year.
...or something like that to give the viewer an explanation. Make it really casual, like regular conversation, then move on the the stupid clown-like humour of Steve Urkel as though nothing was said. Now that is comedy.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Obama Talks to the Children
President Obama is celebrating the new school year with a speech directed at the all the grade 7-12 children in America. The topic of his speech will revolve around the future of education, staying in school and inspiring the children [to do what?]. Not surprisingly this speech has garnered a lot of criticism from the right. Jim Greer, Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, is quoted as saying:
"The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates."
This comment is pure hilarity. By saying that the kids will be ostracized if they disagree with the president, he is conceding the fact that the vast majority of children and educators alike already support the president and his mandate, therefore it is not necessary to try and 'obligate' the children to agree with his reforms; whatever that means. Thank you Mr. Concession.
One of the user comments following the article on the yahoo! news server really shows how ludicrous the arguments against Obama's speech really are;
""I sent my children to school to be educated NOT indoctrinated." — justamom"
The author, a concerned [albeit retarded] mother, is worried that her children will somehow be mesmerized by Obama's speech and become some sort of Democrat-for-life. To this I would say that the whole point of the education system is to indoctrinate the youth. Now, admittedly, my personal experiences come from Canada, but I think in general the process is the same around the world. Taken to the extreme we have the religious schools who are clearly there just to turn out a new generation of worshipers but, all schools are trying to produce a group of kids who will vote in a block. I cannot think of how many times I heard teachers say things like "If the Conservatives win, that is it, I am retiring. I don't need another four years of their BS" (Mr. Cinani said that one specifically for anyone who went to my high school; though similar things were muttered by most teachers).
Why do teachers do such things? Because of a moral rectitude? No. At a Catholic school most teachers would be morally obliged to vote for the Conservatives (though I disagree with the logic), so it is clear that it is out of their own self interest. Since Liberals (and Democrats) tend to support teachers with higher pay, more resources and most prep time, supporting them at all costs is a great way to have their workload lightened while simultaneously increasing their pay.
Let the president speak, have faith that your children will consider what he has to say and make their own decisions as to its validity, and accept that this is the nature of the education system. Besides, most high school students will be legally able to vote in the next federal election and should start watching politics now so that they are a) politically interested and want to vote and b) have gained some immunity to the tripe that spills out of the mouths of most politicians and have built up a filter to tell the difference between rhetoric and reality.
"The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates."
This comment is pure hilarity. By saying that the kids will be ostracized if they disagree with the president, he is conceding the fact that the vast majority of children and educators alike already support the president and his mandate, therefore it is not necessary to try and 'obligate' the children to agree with his reforms; whatever that means. Thank you Mr. Concession.
One of the user comments following the article on the yahoo! news server really shows how ludicrous the arguments against Obama's speech really are;
""I sent my children to school to be educated NOT indoctrinated." — justamom"
The author, a concerned [albeit retarded] mother, is worried that her children will somehow be mesmerized by Obama's speech and become some sort of Democrat-for-life. To this I would say that the whole point of the education system is to indoctrinate the youth. Now, admittedly, my personal experiences come from Canada, but I think in general the process is the same around the world. Taken to the extreme we have the religious schools who are clearly there just to turn out a new generation of worshipers but, all schools are trying to produce a group of kids who will vote in a block. I cannot think of how many times I heard teachers say things like "If the Conservatives win, that is it, I am retiring. I don't need another four years of their BS" (Mr. Cinani said that one specifically for anyone who went to my high school; though similar things were muttered by most teachers).
Why do teachers do such things? Because of a moral rectitude? No. At a Catholic school most teachers would be morally obliged to vote for the Conservatives (though I disagree with the logic), so it is clear that it is out of their own self interest. Since Liberals (and Democrats) tend to support teachers with higher pay, more resources and most prep time, supporting them at all costs is a great way to have their workload lightened while simultaneously increasing their pay.
Let the president speak, have faith that your children will consider what he has to say and make their own decisions as to its validity, and accept that this is the nature of the education system. Besides, most high school students will be legally able to vote in the next federal election and should start watching politics now so that they are a) politically interested and want to vote and b) have gained some immunity to the tripe that spills out of the mouths of most politicians and have built up a filter to tell the difference between rhetoric and reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
