Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
that's another good example
and if you look at some of the great ones, such as Ghandi and Mother Theresa, their lives are distinquished by their service to others, especially the less fortunate
reminds me of employers who take advantage of illegal aliens
yes, I think minimum wages should be increased. Employers are taking advantage of the large pool of immigrants and the fact that they have leverage over illegals
this kind of blows up your theory about them being "dullards"...
...with distinct competitive advantages going to those immigrants with the greatest amount of U.S. education.
How Immigrants Fare finds that those newcomers who get in and remain in the U.S. public school system have equaled or exceeded the educational attainment of native youth. Those immigrants are more likely than natives to take college preparatory courses, just as likely or more likely to graduate from high school within four years from their sophomore year, and more likely than their native counterparts to attend college and remain there continuously for four years. And they are likely to have parents with higher expectations of college attendance for their children than do native-born Americans.
here's one of the articles...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=11153816&txt2find=restaurants
they work in restaurants, in the fields, in construction... there are plenty of labor intensive jobs... overall immigrants help the economy not hinder it. (I believe there was an article posted on this board within the last month or so that talked about the fields they enter... and another that discussed their impact on our economy)
education level doesn't matter much in those jobs and I strong reject your contention that they aren't intelligent
good one and so very true
many who drop out of high school are in fact dullards
your opinion displays your intolerance and disdain
open your mind and eyes... there are many intelligent people out there who aren't obviously so at first glance. You are missing the opportunity to see them and know them and appreciate them. And sometimes, extremely intelligent people do not thrive in an academic environment... this doesn't mean they aren't intelligent.
Albert Einstein was born on March 14, 1879 in Ulm, Germany. His parents were Pauline and Hermann Einstein. It is interesting to note that neither of his parents had any knowledge in the areas of math or science. Even Albert, in his early years, was a very shy but curious kid that showed very little aptitude for anything. In elementary school, Albert was such an under achiever in all subjects other than math and science that his parents suspected that he might be retarded. As it turned out, Albert preferred to learn on his own and had taught himself advanced mathematics and science by the time he was a teenager.
http://home.pacbell.net/kidwell5/aebio.html
hope it helps
one of the most knowledgeable health care advisors I know of does not have a medical degree
study the dictionary... I think your confusion with this topic has to do with terms... such as intelligence vs education/training
capable? now you're using another word that has an entirely different meaning
maybe you need to spend some time with a dictionary
capable:
Having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment
intelligence:
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.
educated:
Showing evidence of schooling, training, or experience.
nobody is saying that an good education or training is bad... it's just a separate thing from intelligence. guess the subtlty of it escapes you
I don't respect a doctor just because he has the degree... there are quite a few out there I wouldn't trust at all. In fact I view the AMA very poorly. There are attorneys who have degrees who are incompetant. I don't mindlessly assume someone is intelligent based on their education level. And conversely, I don't assume someone is unintelligent because they haven't been educated or trained.
You just don't understand there is a difference between intelligence and education or training.
there are alot of things wrong with the CA school system... but YOUR article concluded that the attack was unjustified inspite of those problems.
This attack on public education is unjustified. In the last decade, the burden on California's school system has increased incredibly, and schools have done as well as could be expected with the resources they have:
Things which harm people are freely available, but those who trade in them are of questionable ethics.
yes! exactly!
good point! a perfect example of why education level doesn't necessarily correlate with intelligence!
This attack on public education is unjustified.
sounds like this article is saying it's not a problem lol
what I have heard complaints about is like with the Oakland school district where facilities are not working or safe (water fountains not working, bath rooms not working, etc.)... where teachers aren't being paid as well as other areas, etc.
again, I have not heard complaints about not enough spending on ESL
I haven't heard that complaint about ESL and I've lived in various areas of CA most of my life.
what I've noticed about CA school funding is that although they are supposed to be equally funded, in reality those schools in wealthy neighborhoods make sure their own school for their own kids has plenty of money by holding fund raisers for thousands of extra dollars per child. They build extra rooms, hire extra teachers and support extra programs.
that tells it all that you really think that
reminds me of a boss I had who wouldn't interview anyone without a college degree and one of the first things he asked them is what their grades were... same guy who bragged about cheating his way through Harvard Biz School. This is often just a veiled method for justifying discrimination and prejudices.
there's a difference between being uneducated and being a "dullard" or stupid. Uneducated people are not necessarily stupid, they may simply have not had certain opportunities. I personally know several people who are functionally illiterate yet are very bright, successful and even own their own businesses.
you're whole attitude toward these immigrants is very demeaning
it would make us far less malleable by the power elite
and that's why it's critical
Why would you hear any complaints?
you wouldn't unless people have a general problem with spending public funds to assist immigrants
so why is it you aren't complaining about that for chinese immigrants yet you do for immigrants from mexico? hmmmm... wonder why?
intersting about pictorial languages and Sanskrit... makes a good case for offering it in our public schools
you also have a great point about how we as a nation are not as multilingual as others
good reminder
did she speak English when she arrived here?
I have to go back to my great grandparents to find anyone in my family tree that came here from somewhere else. They didn't speak English well and didn't speak it when they arrived. NG's post would have labeled them "dullards" for not speaking English on arrival.
The English as a second language has the affect of delaying integration.
you have some links to some studies on that? I would think it helps them. And I also have no problem with offering help to immigrants who are trying to get educated and improve themselves and in fact think we should be cheering their efforts on!
So how many English as a second language for Chinese students are their in SF?
I have no clue, but I also have not heard any complaints about it being offered here.
if you aren't even going to look at the links that back up the info I give you... then it's no wonder that you cannot connect the dots... read the FIRST paragraph on the link provided on my post here...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12660427
guilty! :)
then you should take eception to having her called a dullard I would think
or is her case different because she didn't come from Mexico?
I agree 100%
especially when the word dullard is used just because they don't speak English
The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions. But the Bush administration authorized techniques to handle and interrogate prisoners that clearly break the rules —
and just to emphasize one of the many reasons Bush should be impeached and one example of why he is guilty of war crimes.
Rewriting the Geneva Conventions
<< besdies this continuing topic of blantant disregard for the Geneva Convention by Bush & Co, this is also a blantant example of one of his many LIES >>
Published: August 14, 2006
In January 2002, when the Bush administration created the camp at Guantánamo Bay for prisoners from the war in Afghanistan, President Bush said he would be “adhering to the spirit of the Geneva Convention” in handling the detainees.
Unfortunately, like many of the things the administration said about Guantánamo Bay, this was not true. The president did not intend to follow the Geneva Conventions, and in some vital respects, he still doesn’t, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the prisoners merit those protections.
To everyone’s relief, the White House is now working with Congress on one major violation of the conventions found by the court — the military tribunals Mr. Bush invented for Guantánamo Bay. But the president remains determined to have his way on the other big issue — how jailers treat prisoners.
He wants Congress to make the United States the first country to repudiate the language of the Geneva Conventions. The only discernible reason is to allow interrogators — intelligence agents and private contractors — to continue abusive practices plainly banned by the conventions and to make sure they cannot be held accountable.
The Bush administration objects to the clause in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”
This standard has been followed for more than a half-century by almost 190 countries, including the United States. The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions. But the Bush administration authorized techniques to handle and interrogate prisoners that clearly break the rules — like prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, long periods in stress positions, strapping prisoners to metal contraptions and force-feeding them.
The rational response to the court’s decision would be to ban those practices and bring America in line with the rest of the civilized world. But that’s not how this administration works. It asked Congress to change the law — to amend the War Crimes Act to redefine the standards of Common Article 3.
The White House wants to apply an American legal principle, used to prohibit cruel and unusual punishment, that bars treatment that “shocks the conscience.” Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that the language in Common Article 3 is too vague and makes fighting terrorism impossible.
In fact, the Geneva standard is more specific than the shocks-the-conscience standard. And a vast majority of Guantánamo inmates are not terrorists. In fact, many do not appear guilty of anything, not even fighting United States troops in Afghanistan.
The administration’s real aim is to keep on using abusive interrogation techniques at the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency. And it wants to make interrogators — and those who give their orders — immune from prosecution.
Finally, the administration wants Congress to ban the use of the Geneva Conventions as the direct or indirect basis for a legal case in American courts. This would seal off the route that a prisoner used in the case on which the Supreme Court ruled in June.
The Geneva Conventions protect Americans. If this country changes the rules, it’s changing the rules for Americans taken prisoner abroad. That is far too high a price to pay so this administration can hang on to its misbegotten policies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/opinion/14mon1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
how many of your grandparents or great grandparents spoken English as a first language?
good for him speaking up
and I think he's right... most american's don't see it that way...
speaking of Rove... more insight into his handy work
good quote
good catch... not suprising