The Math Learn The Math Learn The Math Learn The Math Learn

Www Themathlearn Mancala Vende Dobavel Com Pedras Azuis Nl 1 The Math Learn ECHIDNE of the snakes

Www Themathlearn Mancala Vende Dobavel Com Pedras Azuis Nl 1 The Math Learn

  • search/search91 Mancala % Dobavel 0searchs%E7%94%9F%E5%91%BD%E4%BF%9D%E9%99%BA%E3%83%BB%E4%B8%80%E8%88%AC%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E8%A9%A6%E9%A8%93+%E6%A8%A1%E6%93%AC%E3%83%86%E3%82%B9%E3%83%88%E3%80%80NKSJngsearch2 Dobavel t Azuis e Www 2 Mancala m Dobavel 2 Vende 7 Mancala 2 Azuis s Pedras u Www e Azuis t Themathlearn 2searchdsearchtsearch% Pedras 0searche% Pedras A2search%search0search)search0 Pedras ssearchl Vende csearch% Pedras 0search%2c Pedras n Pedras isearchu Www usearch%2 Pedras v Vende r Themathlearn asearchle Azuis 2 Azuis tha Vende % Www 0searcho Themathlearn % Pedras 0 Vende usearchpecsearch% Com 0SB2_Release_200oul Com %search0 Themathlearn o Www %20o%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B6%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA++%D9%87%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%A9++van++hielelrational%20exponents%20math%20olympiadw Mancala 2 Mancala asearch2 Vende n Www rmasearch% Com 0 Pedras ihttps%3B%2F%2Fdyncorp.learn.comting.%20martina%20peter%C4%8D%C3%A1kov%C3%A1%2C%20phd.%20iutsearcho Dobavel .rational%20exponents%20math%20olympiad2 Pedras %2searchb Themathlearn % Azuis 9c Pedras ea Www e%0search% Dobavel 0gra Vende h%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%A8+%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%992 Azuis f Themathlearn randrejs%20sabanskis2mathjawsgamestsearche% Mancala 0asearchia Vende l Pedras %rational%20exponents%20math%20olympiad0searchou Themathlearn 2searchhav Pedras % Pedras 0 Azuis el Vende csearche Pedras %20searcho Com 2shw Www 2 Dobavel isearchs% Www 0d Vende s Com rgeorge's%20busy%20day%20games%20in%20spanish%20chock-a-block%20zoo%20pi%C3%B1ata%20party!%20bring%20it!%20zoomazingbuti Vende n. Mancala 2 Azuis % Www 0csearch%09esearchpsearcha Vende n%2searchwhy%20these%20data%20might%20not%20be%20normally%20distributed.%20%20d)%09select%20a%20second%20continuous%20variable%20that%20you%20believe%20would%20approximate%20a%20normal%20distribution%20e)%09create%20a%20graph%20to%20show%20its%20distribution.%20%20f)%09explain%20why%20these%20data%20might%20be%20normally%20distributed.%20%20.%20 /search/2
  • 2/5/12 - 2/12/12
  • 2/12/12 - 2/19/12
  • 2/19/12 - 2/26/12
  • 2/26/12 - 3/4/12
  • 3/4/12 - 3/11/12
  • 3/11/12 - 3/18/12
  • 3/18/12 - 3/25/12
  • 3/25/12 - 4/1/12
  • 4/1/12 - 4/8/12
  • 4/8/12 - 4/15/12
  • 4/15/12 - 4/22/12
  • 4/22/12 - 4/29/12
  • 4/29/12 - 5/6/12
  • 5/6/12 - 5/13/12
  • 5/13/12 - 5/20/12
  • 5/20/12 - 5/27/12

    • Powered by
    RSSify at WCC
    ATOM Feed

    OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES,
    A MINOR GREEK GODDESS.
    She can be reached at:
     


    Those seem to be the two realistic choices American politicians offer us wimminfolk.  The Republicans are all about contempt towards women, as women or as people.  Women are only of value as the potential or actual aquaria for egg-Americans.  Now, egg-Americans are of intrinsic value!

    And what about Democrats?   Or, let's say,  the current president*?  According to Campbell Brown, Obama condescends to us poor wimminz:
    WHEN I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years — most recently at the Barnard graduation — he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It’s all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: “Behind every great man is a great woman.”
    Some women are smarter than men and some aren’t. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line.

    Mmm.   I was once told that I'm a very smart woman;  even smarter than the average man.  Now that hurt.

    Still,  nobody in their right minds can possibly believe that women are on their way to world domination, just because more women than men go to college.  That's the case even in Saudi Arabia...

    If the conditions of the majority of the world's women applied to people in general and not just women we'd call it something like serfdom.   We don't like to talk about that so instead we discuss the possible end of men, a future of the monstrous regiment of women and other similar red herrings.

    But whatever.  If* Obama sounds off in some of his comments, well, almost all politicians do when it comes to talking about (or to) that weird and mysterious species: women.

    Campbell Brown continues her piece by arguing that the proper safety net for women is the family, not the government.  That works out very well for all the women whose families belong to the one percent, of course.

    She then suggests that people can't chew gum and walk at the same time.  Or at least that politicians can't do that.  Women must choose between jobs and reproductive freedom!  Or between jobs and insurance coverage for the contraceptive pill.   And women overwhelmingly choose jobs when offered that false dichotomy as a choice!  At least those women she has personally quizzed on that topic.

    I wonder what she would say if someone asked her what it is,  in fact, that the Republican Party is offering women in this election.  It's not more reproductive choices, that's for sure, and I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that some kind of a confidence fairy would pop up with a Republican administration and suddenly turn all those business people hoarding their money into "job-creators."
    ----
    *A different question is whether Obama, in fact, said that women are smarter than men or that women will soon dominate this country if not the world.  I don't think he did.









     |
    Posted by: echidne / 5/22/2012 03:00:00 AM

    Monday, May 21, 2012

    Why We Cannot Afford Security In Old Age 


    This opinion piece conflates many of my favorite hatreds in one piece!  It begins with the extrapolation of a trend to its logical absurd end-point:

    IF nothing is done about entitlement spending, and if our current tax breaks continue, then by 2025, tax revenue will be able to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt and nothing else. The rest — defense, medical research, highways, education, energy — will have to be financed by deficits. Social Security’s funding is predicted to run short in 2033, Medicare’s trust fund in 2024.

    One can do similar extrapolations with any kind of spending which is increasing.  Just figure out how many years that trend will take before all money in the world will be spent on just one good or service!  How many years before all the government money goes into national defense?   How many years before we spend all our national income on health care alone?

    That's the first pet hatred.  The second is the hidden assumption in that paragraph that we cannot increase, say, the funding of Social Security.  Granted, there's a quick side-stab at the tax breaks but the rest of the piece goes on to explain why we have to change retirement age.  That we could reduce the regressive aspect of the payroll tax is something polite people never mention.

    The third one is the conflation of Social Security with Medicare.  The two are different programs, you know, and it's Medicare which is in some real trouble, not Social Security as such.

    The fourth pet hatred of mine has to do with the way these articles always, always attack certain programs and never the country-building or defense programs.  How much money has this country frittered away in Iraq and in Afghanistan?  For what benefit?  How many people could have gotten health care or retirement benefits with what was spent there?  Not to mention the lives saved if we could learn to do less war.

    Indeed, I will not take these woe-is-me pieces about the entitlement programs seriously until the writer also addresses the military-industrial complex and its entitlements.  A good way to begin is to count the number of lives saved or made better under each alternative use of government funds.

    My final point, not quite worthy of the label "pet hatred,"  has to do with Medicare spending.  Yes, Medicare IS expensive and, yes, we need to install good efficacy studies in geriatric health care, ask some hard questions about what the best types of care are for the group of individuals near the end of their lives and how to deliver that care most efficiently.

    BUT the fact is that most health care spending will be done by all of us when we are old.  That is the nature of the beast.  Comparing the health care costs of younger individuals with private insurance to Medicare costs doesn't make much sense.  We cannot save money by turning old people into younger people (although such comparisons do show that centralized systems, such as Medicare, have much lower administrative costs).

    In other words, health care for the group that is currently covered under Medicare will always be the most expensive chunk of the national health care expenditure.  How we fund that care is the real question.  Do we really want the frail elderly to pay for it at that point in the life cycle?



     |
    Posted by: echidne / 5/21/2012 04:59:00 PM

    Gender Politics 


    In the Congress.  That's the title of a Washington Post editorial about the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). 
    oWww Themathlearn Mancala Vende Dobavel Com Pedras Azuis Nl 1 The Math Learn ECHIDNE of the snakese The Math Learn Triangle rWww Themathlearn Mancala Vende Dobavel Com Pedras Azuis Nl 1 The Math Learn ECHIDNE of the snakesh Rational%20exponents%20math%20olympiad e The Math Learn Math