Jun
19
Source: boston.com
Read Article
While Hayward’s pricey ship whipped around the Isle of Wight on a good day for sailing — breezy and about 68 degrees — anger simmered on the steamy Gulf Coast, where crude has been washing in from the still-gushing spill.
Um, okay. So BP CEO Tony Hayward took one day off to go do something personal. What, is he not human anymore? Yes, the oil spill sucks and I can’t even begin to imagine how devastating it is for people in the affected areas. But he, the CEO of a company, taking a mere day off to enjoy a bit of personal time shouldn’t be something to go up in arms about. It’s not a big deal. The article also makes a reference to people getting upset with President Obama and VP Biden for enjoying a round of golf on Saturday. What are they supposed to do, work 24/7? These people are human beings and they have lives and they need little bits of time off from their job, otherwise they’ll break down under pressure and fail to be successful (some people think they’re already failing, but not taking breaks will assure they’ll do worse than however you think they’re doing right now).
I just find it silly when things like make the news. Hayward was relieved of day-to-day duties of managing the oil spill, anyway. Yeah, he’s definitely at fault for taking risks and taking shortcuts when it came to drilling oil, but this has nothing to do with the fact that the man, the human being, just needs a little time off. If you were in his shoes, you’d probably want to do the same thing if you had a $700,000 yacht that you wanted to see race. I know we don’t always like spokespeople, but I don’t think Robert Wine’s so far off when he says, “He’s spending a few hours with his family at a weekend. I’m sure that everyone would understand that.”
One person also said, “I think everyone has the right to do what they want in their free time, but he doesn’t have the right to have free time at all.” Everyone has the right to some free time.
Jun
19
Patients’ Own Stem Cells Work Wonders
Filed Under Link | Leave a Comment
Source: boston.com
Read Article
The stem-cell treatment restored sight to more than three-quarters of the 112 patients treated, Pellegrini said this week at the International Society for Stem Cell Research meeting. The patients were followed for an average of three years and some for as long as a decade, Pellegrini said.
Science is amazing. It’s a very short read; go check it out.
Jun
18
Assessing Teacher Performance
Filed Under Education, Link, Opinion | Leave a Comment
Source: Washington Post
Read Article
Michele Kerr talks about criteria that should be met if teachers are assessed by student test scores. I agree with her completely. One of my favorite parts is what she says about her first point, only including students in teacher evaluations that are present at least 90% of the time:
Without the missing students, the tests won’t yield a complete picture of learning. But the tests’ purpose is to yield a picture of teaching, which isn’t the same thing as learning. Teachers can’t teach children who aren’t there.
And further, her reasoning for positing that students who cannot score at a “basic” proficient level should be “prohibited from moving forward to the next class in the progression:”
Students who can’t prove they know algebra can’t take geometry. If they can’t read at a ninth-grade level, they can’t take sophomore English — or, for that matter, sophomore-level history or science, which presumes sophomore-level reading ability. Not only is it nearly impossible for these students to learn the new material, but they also slow everyone else as the teacher struggles to find a middle ground.
That point alone could solve the issues of high school students who can’t read at a high school level. If they can’t read that well, why are they in high school? Who failed to do their job by promoting them? They will just fall through the cracks more and more until someone actually sits them down and gives them intensive reading programs until they get it. Because they can be taught, no matter what it takes.
There’s so much more good stuff in this article and I could quote every word she says. It’s a really good read.
Jun
16
More on the Monthly Gun Limit
Filed Under Opinion, Politics | Leave a Comment
Source: boston.com
Read Article
James Alan Fox’s view of the bill that’s going through the state Legislature regarding a monthly limit on gun purchases. He hits the nail at the end:
In my first post on this topic earlier last week, I did indeed ask why anyone would legitimately need to buy guns in bulk or purchase more than one gun in a month’s time. The clearest statement came from one gun owner who indicated that he might want to take advantage of a sale to stock up firearms. Sorry, but maybe you can ask for a rain check for that extra guns, or put it on a month’s lay-away. The interests of public safety come first.
Being able to stockpile on anything should be a freedom, but stockpiling on guns can very easily create a risk because of gun traffickers. Read the rest of his post, and also read my previous post on the matter.
Jun
8
Source: boston.com
Read Article
A proposal to limit the number of guns a person can buy in Massachusetts is being mulled by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee today, sparking hope among supporters that the bill may finally come to a vote.
Proponents of the bill say it would make it difficult for gun traffickers to obtain weapons in bulk, then sell them illegally on the streets of Boston. Right now, people licensed to buy guns can buy an unlimited number of weapons. Gun control advocates said that allows for “straw purchases,” in which people who are legally able to buy guns are hired by gun traffickers to purchase weapons.
The limit would be one gun purchase a month. In the wake of recent shootings (and shootings in general), I think it would be a very good thing. Why do you need to buy more than one gun anyway? That last line about “straw purchases” is very important and I think a big reason why a bill like this should pass – these illegal gun sales are the problem. With this bill, gun traffickers would have to search for many more people to gain their stock and it would make it much more difficult to get as much money from their “trade”.
And yes, according to one of the gun control opponents quoted in the article, it does hurt people who honestly buy guns and aren’t doing anything wrong – but I’d rather have their toes stepped on just a little to curb gun trafficking and these unnecessary injuries and deaths. While the Constitution does say that you have a right to bear arms, it never said how many, and I really don’t think you need more than one or two if you have any at all.