On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:15:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote:


Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left
coast with the average education in customarily red states like
Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks.

It's worse than that:

http://www.thebluestate.com/2005/10/...06_smarte.html

Note, the 21 states that spend the least on education, are all red.



I always get a kick out of the rationalization that education (or money
spent on it) automatically implies"smartness" in people.
There's a lot of stupid people with years of advanced degrees, just as there
are many "smart" people with limited education.

Eisboch


As a former teacher, I agree wholeheartedly. Lots of money spent on
education does not equate to better education.
--
John H

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:07:15 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:15?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote:

Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left
coast with the average education in customarily red states like
Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks.

It's worse than that:

http://www.thebluestate.com/2005/10/...06_smarte.html

Note, the 21 states that spend the least on education, are all red.

I always get a kick out of the rationalization that education (or money
spent on it) ?automatically implies"smartness" in people.
There's a lot of stupid people with years of advanced degrees, just as there
are many "smart" people with limited education.

Eisboch

I agree with you entirely.

The basis for even considering education in the discussion was a claim
that D's oppose "No Child Left Behind", and thaty they do so because
if the amount of education were increased across the country the
number of people supporting the D's would decrease.

Which, by the way, was a valid claim.
--
John H

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:07:15 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:15?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote:

Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the
left
coast with the average education in customarily red states like
Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks.

It's worse than that:

http://www.thebluestate.com/2005/10/...06_smarte.html

Note, the 21 states that spend the least on education, are all red.

I always get a kick out of the rationalization that education (or money
spent on it) ?automatically implies"smartness" in people.
There's a lot of stupid people with years of advanced degrees, just as
there
are many "smart" people with limited education.

Eisboch

I agree with you entirely.

The basis for even considering education in the discussion was a claim
that D's oppose "No Child Left Behind", and thaty they do so because
if the amount of education were increased across the country the
number of people supporting the D's would decrease.

Talk to middle and high school teachers about NCLB and see what they
say about the system.

It's a total disaster. And in states that require mainstreaming of
those children who are developmentally, physically, mentally or
emotionally "challenged", it's almost impossible to achieve the
standards required by NCLB.

So what's the solution? In MA and CT, it's teach the mastery test.
Simple as that.

There is a huge hole in this article as well.

Look at the states that spend the least (in order): Utah, Arizona,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Tennessee, Idaho, North Carolina,
Alabama -- and I still have not reached a blue state yet. I'll keep
going: North Dakota, Florida, Nevada, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri,
Iowa, Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Kentucky, and then
finally California. The 21 states that spend the least amount on
education dollars per student are all red.

Let's take this state-by-state - these "red" states using state
legislatures as our guide.

Utah -Gov/R - Senate/R - House/R - red
Arizona - Gov/D - Senate/R - House/R - red
Arkansas - Gov/D - Senate/D - House/D - blue
Oklahoma - Gov/D - Senate/D - House/R - blue
Mississippi - Gov/R - Senate/D - House/D - blue
Tennessee - Gov/D - Senate/R - House/D - blue
Idaho - Gov/R - Senate/R - House/R - red
North Carolina - Gov/D - Senate/D - House/D - blue
Alabama - Gov/R - Senate/D - House/D - blue
North Dakota - Gov/R - Senate/R - House/R - red
Florida - Gov/R - Senate/R - House/R - red
Nevada - Gov/R - Senate/R - House/D - red
Texas - Gov/R - Senate/R - House/R - red
New Mexico - Gov/D - Senate/D - House/D - blue
Missouri - Gov/R - Senate/R - House/R - red
Iowa - Gov/D - Senate/D - House/D - blue
Louisiana - Gov/R - Senate/D - House/D - blue
Kansas - Gov/D - Senate/R - House/R - red
Nebraska - Gov/R - Unicameral Legislature/R - red
South Dakota - Gov/R - Senate/R - House/R - red
Kentucky - Gov/D - Senate/R - House/D - blue
California - Gov/R - Senate/D - House/D - blue

11 state governments are predominately Republican, 10 are
predominately Democratic.

Move on to Federal level.

Utah -Senate/R - House/R - red
Arizona - Senate/R - House/split - red
Arkansas - Senate/D - House/D - blue
Oklahoma - Senate/R - House/R - red
Mississippi - Senate/R - House/split - red
Tennessee - Senate/R - House/D - push
Idaho - Senate/R - House/R - red
North Carolina - Senate/R - House/D - push
Alabama - Senate/R - House/R - red
North Dakota - Senate/D - House/D - blue
Florida - Senate/Split - House/R - red
Nevada - Senate/Split - House/R - red
Texas - Senate/R - House/R - red
New Mexico - Senate/Split - House/R - red
Missouri - Senate/Split - House/R - red
Iowa - Senate/Split - House/D - blue
Louisiana - Senate/Split - House/R - red
Kansas - Senate/R - House/Split - red
Nebraska - Senate/Split - House/R - red
South Dakota - Senate/Split - House/D - blue
Kentucky - Senate/R - House/Split - red
California - Senate/D - House/D - blue

15 states with predominately Republican Senate/House combinations, 4
states with predominately Democratic combinations and two push.

So, any way you want to look at it, all of these states can't be
called "red" in any sense of the word. It's a very distorted view
presented for a particular purpose.

And how he could possibly call California "red" is completely beyond
me.

Easy. Communist.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:37:24 -0800, Calif Bill penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:



Oversized for your size boat is not a revenue generator. Then ar more
likely trying to keep the traffic flowing smoothly. So the permit
requires
you to know when and where you can not tow.


There is no restriction on where... only when.... and most people
aren't dragging a big (wide) boat around in the dark, anyway.

Even then, the permit is not openly displayed nor is any placarding or
flagging necessary.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080209-0, 02/09/2008
Tested on: 2/10/2008 3:06:32 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com




Here, you can not tow on the bridges during certain hours. As well as some
freeways.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:09:27 -0500, HK wrote:

Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma
Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway
boat trailer.


Perhaps, but your chances are better with a boat trailer.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:46:46 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Your guy with the 33 footer likely would exceed the 60' overall
length.

I see boats over 40 ft being towed all the time.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:09:27 -0500, HK wrote:

Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma
Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway
boat trailer.


Perhaps, but your chances are better with a boat trailer.



Mike Huckabee said if I prayed a lot, it would happen.

On Feb 10, 5:05*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:46:46 -0500, Gene Kearns

wrote:
Your guy with the 33 footer likely would exceed the 60' overall
length.

I see boats over 40 ft being towed all the time.

By boats over 60 feet??

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:09:27 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

The one thing I really don't like about hauling big boats is looking out
the rear view mirror and seeing the "Battleship Missouri" two feet behind
me. Always gives me the willies.
pansy
Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma
Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway
boat trailer.

I would prefer not to die period.

Thank you very much.


I believe my preference is more possible than yours.

On Feb 10, 4:08*pm, HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:09:27 -0500, HK wrote:

Yeah, well, I'd prefer to die after a weekend in the sack with Salma
Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard than squished by a runaway
boat trailer.

Perhaps, but your chances are better with a boat trailer.

Mike Huckabee said if I prayed a lot, it would happen.

Did he really, Harry?