I have been following a Permaculture page on facebook. Today they posted about how Apple is "moving towards 100% renewable energy." This is ridiculous, Permaculture, people? What the hell has gotten into you? I don't even know what the fuck moving toward a 100% renewable energy means, but I don't give a shit, Apple.
I hate this fucking company with a passion. Mostly because I'm poor as fuck and will never own an iPhone. But also because Steve Jobs was a dick and they are stupid. That's right. I called a dead person a dick. It takes a pretty big dick for me to do that.
I know. Deep argument.
But seriously. You have a corporation that makes more profit per employee than pretty much any corporation in the history of time. They have workers who try to kill themselves, so they have to build nets to save their asses. They build shitty phones that break easily, but charge an assload to purchase and use them. And somehow, people think this constitutes genius and innovation?
No. It is called consumerism and fancy marketing. You are a douche if you buy into it.
With the profits these bastards are making, they should have been using 100% renewable energy long before now, not just "moving towards" it today. And they should be paying ALL their workers a living wage and providing working and living conditions that don't make people compelled to jump out of windows.
If you think that is innovation or hip, you are a fucking retard. And I'm pretty politically correct, so I reserve the retard label for very rare occasions.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
fuck gential mutilation
The chicken pox is so terrbile that we have to mandate that all chicken get the varicella vacciine before school. Why? I guess because before the vaccine was used widely, 100-150 (http://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/about/overview.html) people died each year from the disease.
Interestingly, about the same number of infant boys die each year due to complications from circumcision surgery http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/).
If saving 100-150 people's lives a year is worth introducing a national policy for a vaccine, why isn't it worth introducing a national policy to eliminate a barbaric, riduculous procedure that has no medical benefit....and can cause psychological trauma and potentially ruin the sex lives of these boys once they are adults?
Or perhaps I should ask, why do parents see it as necessary to vaccinate their child to protect him from the chicken pox after they have already exposed him to a risk just a deadly?
Our nation is fucking insane.
Interestingly, about the same number of infant boys die each year due to complications from circumcision surgery http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/).
If saving 100-150 people's lives a year is worth introducing a national policy for a vaccine, why isn't it worth introducing a national policy to eliminate a barbaric, riduculous procedure that has no medical benefit....and can cause psychological trauma and potentially ruin the sex lives of these boys once they are adults?
Or perhaps I should ask, why do parents see it as necessary to vaccinate their child to protect him from the chicken pox after they have already exposed him to a risk just a deadly?
Our nation is fucking insane.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
fuck preschool
So. Because of the advice of economists (who have no business talking about education) and some flawed studies, apparently, President Obama thinks universal preschool is a rad idea. So rad, that he brought it up in his state of the union address.
Well. I have to say, that, along with drones and Monsanto (who Obama seems to heart a bit), it's not the raddest of ideas.
I have been reading research on this subject for many years now. I have also worked in a number of early child education programs as well as public elementary schools. I'm still no expert, but here are my conclusions:
Of all the research I've read, positive LONG TERM outcomes from preschool have only been achieved by early childhood programs that have had a huge parent education/involvement element. Just putting kids in preschool will not work. At all. In fact, I have read numerous studies showing that early direct academic instruction has more long term negative effects than good outcomes, including higher incarceration rates and drop out rates, as well as lower test scores beyond the third grade.
There is tons of evidence that the biggest effects on long term literacy achievement happen before children are even old enough to be in preschool. The more oral language that children are exposed to during the first few years of life, the better outcomes for the rest of their life. Of course, when this is studied, we find out that children from low-income homes are exposed to the least amount of words. Parents are not reading to their children, nor talking to them. When they do, they are using very limited vocabulary. I would think, at least for literacy, the best approach is intervention at birth and equipping parents to expose their children to a vast amount of oral language.
Besides this, another huge factor for both life and academic success is self regulation. Children who enter elementary school with well developed self regulation are pretty much bound for success. And children learn this best when their caregivers model appropriate self regulation themselves. With this, preschool can help, but children are still most influenced by their parents. In this area, preschool will never provide more than very modest gains. Intervention in the home is needed. Badly.
Also, children gain a great deal of self-regulation ability through play. If you put them in teacher directed academic preschools (which it seems is what Obama is pushing), they are missing out on a lot of self directed play that will help them develop self regulation in a healthy, natural way.
And then, there is the fact that early academic instruction can be harmful in other ways. If children are not developmentally prepared to learn certain academics (meaning identifying letters and sight words, basic math, etc...which a vast majority of preschoolers are not ready to learn), teaching these things to them is not a good idea. Instead of really comprehending what they are being taught, they develop "splinter skills." Meaning, they memorize this stuff and can pass tests, but they never develop an integrative understanding of the abstract concept behind it. Then their brains start to learn everything in this shallow way...for the rest of their lives. Not a good outcome, if you ask me.
I think we should not dismiss the progress that Finland has made in education. They went from very average compared to the world to the top in PISA scores. Now they consistently are staying at the top. While the US has pushed for earlier and earlier instruction and more standardized tests, Finland has been doing things completely differently and getting amazing results.
Interestingly, they have no formal academic instruction until children are seven years old, but they do focus on preparing parents to do what is developmentally appropriate to prepare their children for success. This is from wikipedia:
"To foster a culture of reading, parents of newborn babies are given three books, one for each parent, and a baby book for the child, as part of the "maternity package".[5] According to Finnish child development specialist Eeva Hujala, "Early education is the first and most critical stage of lifelong learning. Neurological research has shown that 90% of brain growth occurs during the first five years of life, and 85% of the nerve paths develop before starting school (n. b. At the age of seven in Finland)."[6] "Care" in this context is synonymous with upbringing and is seen as a cooperative endeavor between parents and society to prepare children physically (eating properly, keeping clean) and mentally (communication, social awareness, empathy, and self-reflection) before beginning more formal learning at age seven. The idea is that before seven they learn best through play, so by the time they finally get to school they are keen to start learning."
Granted, Finland has vastly different demographics than the United States, but they are not without poverty and disadvantaged children. UN and Finalnd allows anyone from a UN country to move to Finland and automatically be entitled to everything that Finnish citizens are entitled to. This means there are tons of poverty stricken, uneducated people immigrating there from former Soviet Union countries...who do not speak the native languages (which there are two national languages already to begin with that educators have to work with). Not the ideal students or parents to work with at all.
And just some non-important anecdotal evidence. From a statistical point of view, I was a high risk disadvantaged child living in poverty. I didn't attend preschool and only went to half day kindergarten at age five. My younger brother and sister came into the world when our family was at a middle class status. They both started a private academic preschool program at age three and started full day kindergarten at five. Both of them have scored significantly lower than I ever did on every standardized test they have ever taken. I had no problem getting high enough grades and ACT scores to get into most competitive private colleges while both of them barely got high enough ACT scores to get into a state university. My sister is currently struggling to get through a community college program. I'm not trying to boast at all, but point out that they had much better academic instruction and preparedness than I did, and it seemed to have harmed them.
I'll also add: as someone who has had to force three and four year olds to sit still and do academic work when their bodies and minds want to explore and play, I have to say, it is depressing as h*ll. I'll go as far as to say that it borders on being abusive. Yes, there are some three and four year olds who are ready to do this kind of work, as children develop at astonishingly different levels. Some are ready for this at three or four. Those children enjoy it and thrive. However, the vast majority of preschoolers are not in this category. There are many five and six year olds who are not ready for this level of academic instruction either. If anything, forcing academics on these children sets them up to hate school and learning in any context. That is a tragedy.
Well. I have to say, that, along with drones and Monsanto (who Obama seems to heart a bit), it's not the raddest of ideas.
I have been reading research on this subject for many years now. I have also worked in a number of early child education programs as well as public elementary schools. I'm still no expert, but here are my conclusions:
Of all the research I've read, positive LONG TERM outcomes from preschool have only been achieved by early childhood programs that have had a huge parent education/involvement element. Just putting kids in preschool will not work. At all. In fact, I have read numerous studies showing that early direct academic instruction has more long term negative effects than good outcomes, including higher incarceration rates and drop out rates, as well as lower test scores beyond the third grade.
There is tons of evidence that the biggest effects on long term literacy achievement happen before children are even old enough to be in preschool. The more oral language that children are exposed to during the first few years of life, the better outcomes for the rest of their life. Of course, when this is studied, we find out that children from low-income homes are exposed to the least amount of words. Parents are not reading to their children, nor talking to them. When they do, they are using very limited vocabulary. I would think, at least for literacy, the best approach is intervention at birth and equipping parents to expose their children to a vast amount of oral language.
Besides this, another huge factor for both life and academic success is self regulation. Children who enter elementary school with well developed self regulation are pretty much bound for success. And children learn this best when their caregivers model appropriate self regulation themselves. With this, preschool can help, but children are still most influenced by their parents. In this area, preschool will never provide more than very modest gains. Intervention in the home is needed. Badly.
Also, children gain a great deal of self-regulation ability through play. If you put them in teacher directed academic preschools (which it seems is what Obama is pushing), they are missing out on a lot of self directed play that will help them develop self regulation in a healthy, natural way.
And then, there is the fact that early academic instruction can be harmful in other ways. If children are not developmentally prepared to learn certain academics (meaning identifying letters and sight words, basic math, etc...which a vast majority of preschoolers are not ready to learn), teaching these things to them is not a good idea. Instead of really comprehending what they are being taught, they develop "splinter skills." Meaning, they memorize this stuff and can pass tests, but they never develop an integrative understanding of the abstract concept behind it. Then their brains start to learn everything in this shallow way...for the rest of their lives. Not a good outcome, if you ask me.
I think we should not dismiss the progress that Finland has made in education. They went from very average compared to the world to the top in PISA scores. Now they consistently are staying at the top. While the US has pushed for earlier and earlier instruction and more standardized tests, Finland has been doing things completely differently and getting amazing results.
Interestingly, they have no formal academic instruction until children are seven years old, but they do focus on preparing parents to do what is developmentally appropriate to prepare their children for success. This is from wikipedia:
"To foster a culture of reading, parents of newborn babies are given three books, one for each parent, and a baby book for the child, as part of the "maternity package".[5] According to Finnish child development specialist Eeva Hujala, "Early education is the first and most critical stage of lifelong learning. Neurological research has shown that 90% of brain growth occurs during the first five years of life, and 85% of the nerve paths develop before starting school (n. b. At the age of seven in Finland)."[6] "Care" in this context is synonymous with upbringing and is seen as a cooperative endeavor between parents and society to prepare children physically (eating properly, keeping clean) and mentally (communication, social awareness, empathy, and self-reflection) before beginning more formal learning at age seven. The idea is that before seven they learn best through play, so by the time they finally get to school they are keen to start learning."
Granted, Finland has vastly different demographics than the United States, but they are not without poverty and disadvantaged children. UN and Finalnd allows anyone from a UN country to move to Finland and automatically be entitled to everything that Finnish citizens are entitled to. This means there are tons of poverty stricken, uneducated people immigrating there from former Soviet Union countries...who do not speak the native languages (which there are two national languages already to begin with that educators have to work with). Not the ideal students or parents to work with at all.
And just some non-important anecdotal evidence. From a statistical point of view, I was a high risk disadvantaged child living in poverty. I didn't attend preschool and only went to half day kindergarten at age five. My younger brother and sister came into the world when our family was at a middle class status. They both started a private academic preschool program at age three and started full day kindergarten at five. Both of them have scored significantly lower than I ever did on every standardized test they have ever taken. I had no problem getting high enough grades and ACT scores to get into most competitive private colleges while both of them barely got high enough ACT scores to get into a state university. My sister is currently struggling to get through a community college program. I'm not trying to boast at all, but point out that they had much better academic instruction and preparedness than I did, and it seemed to have harmed them.
I'll also add: as someone who has had to force three and four year olds to sit still and do academic work when their bodies and minds want to explore and play, I have to say, it is depressing as h*ll. I'll go as far as to say that it borders on being abusive. Yes, there are some three and four year olds who are ready to do this kind of work, as children develop at astonishingly different levels. Some are ready for this at three or four. Those children enjoy it and thrive. However, the vast majority of preschoolers are not in this category. There are many five and six year olds who are not ready for this level of academic instruction either. If anything, forcing academics on these children sets them up to hate school and learning in any context. That is a tragedy.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
it's a new day bitches. i mean, lovelies....
i have decided to go to massage school.
for the second time.
all seems right with the world again.
of course, i think that probably is how it feels every time i make a grand decision.
then i get bored with it.
we will see.
i am still working on my bachelor's too.
not sure what bachelor i am going for.
right now it's special ed, but it will likely change.
flaky is my specialty.
for the second time.
all seems right with the world again.
of course, i think that probably is how it feels every time i make a grand decision.
then i get bored with it.
we will see.
i am still working on my bachelor's too.
not sure what bachelor i am going for.
right now it's special ed, but it will likely change.
flaky is my specialty.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)