“Look at the numbers, and it doesn’t make any sense. There were more dead people in Georgia that voted than Democrats registered!”

"Our Christian heritage also rejects the avoidance of death at any cost by venerating the millions of martyrs we honor precisely for choosing to confess Christ despite the indescribable costs to them of comfort, health and life itself."

This sums up why she and others like her reject the vaccine. They want to be martyrs. For exactly what I don't know. I would also add that if "Our Christian heritage also rejects the avoidance of death" is true, why do they pray for healing? Ever? Sheesh.

wow. you guys have some real fucktards up there, TOO.

did they come from here in the war of 1812?

macroscopic wrote:

wow. you guys have some real fucktards up there, TOO.

That decision takes care of the last of the 3 R's. Half of students can't do any "readin'". They don't even teach writen' anymore so I guess 'rithmatic was bound to go.

Typical that rather than fixing the problem (i.e., improving math education for the segment that is supposedly affected) they simply dumbed things down.

Unfortunately this is not satire

The Folly of English Teachers Who Oppose Reading
DANIEL BUCK

The National Council of Teachers of English wants to ‘decenter’ book-reading and essay-writing as the fundamentals of English class. This is a mistake.

The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) has proclaimed that it is time “to decenter book reading and essay writing as the pinnacles of English language arts education.” Apparently, they don’t teach irony in English classes anymore.

The argument in the statement isn’t new. At the turn of the century, John Dewey, a central figure in progressive education, argued that the industrial revolution necessitated a “new education.” Now, the NCTE argues that “as society and technology change, so too does literacy,” and so we English teachers must focus on videos, gifs, memes, and other media.

They absolutely shouldn’t, though. Society might change, but ...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/ ... e-reading/

The SAT Isn’t What’s Unfair
MIT brings back a test that, despite its reputation, helps low-income students in an inequitable society.
By Kathryn Paige Harden

Critics of standardized tests have had plenty of reasons to celebrate lately. More than three-quarters of colleges are not requiring the SAT or the ACT for admission this fall, an all-time high, and more than 400 Ph.D. programs have dropped the GRE, up from a mere handful a few years ago. MIT’s announcement on Monday that it is reinstating a testing requirement for fall 2023 admissions was a major departure from these recent trends. Just as striking, amid the widespread perception of standardized testing as an engine of inequality, was MIT’s rationale: “Not having SATs/ACT scores to consider,” MIT’s dean of admissions, Stu Schmill, wrote, “tends to raise socioeconomic barriers to demonstrating readiness for our education.” Dropping the SAT, it turns out, actually hurts low-income students, rather than helping them.

MIT’s conclusion is counterintuitive because students from richer families, on average, score higher on the SAT and other standardized tests than students from poorer ones. The correlation between family background and SAT performance is from about .25 to .40—that is, meaningful but far from perfect. Still, it’s strong enough that some researchers dismiss standardized tests as nothing more than a proxy for ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ts/629455/