By: Aynn Ran Where

Aynn Ran Where — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:06:42 +0000

Tom exposes 1960 American education in a new way. He shows how irrelevant his opinion is by reminding us that when JFK exhorted Marilyn to lift him up to the moon it only “enabled” a few engineers to do so. The rest of us watched on TV. And Tom reminds us that we’re Twits because only a handful of cool nerds are building the networks and writing the programs while the bulk of American students are unemployed college grads with teaching degrees. Ooops. There’s a flaw there. I think as long as our politicians send their children to private schools we won’t see the benefits of public education. Unless the students who go to public school do something themselves. They’ll have to learn to open a book and read. They’ll have to study. They’ll compete in whatever sports their district can afford if they can hire a full time coach. They will not learn math and science if they don’t study. And speaking of evolution we have to put that church stuff out of the classroom. There’s a day a week or more if u’d like to go to your fav religious institution or meet and talk with your creator if u plz on your own time. If you can’t figure out science than become a garbage man. If u can do better than that go out and earn it. There is no time for young people to wait for the Tom Friedman’s of the world to change the 1960′s. Get out and do it yourself for yourself for your future or u will be the garbage man.

By: U Rang

U Rang — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:38:33 +0000

Cheey i’d that our prez is above politics. I didn’t know Paul. If I met him it must have been at a pizza parlor in Clifton or Passaic. I understand he was short like John Lennon. Perhaps he came from the same crowd that bore us the egalitarian down-to-earth acutely talented Garbos, Bacall and Greenstreets. You know the ones who rode Bearcats but really understood they were not delivered from the heavens. If Clinton shook hands he also grabbed wallets and was exceptional at turning a dollar. If I’m missing the point of the article it is not that Obama can’t shake a loving handful of hard earned detergent, but that he has lost in the money claiming lottery to the rich white boy. I hear a song playing. I ain’t no senator’s son. No I doubt that what Dowd writes has truth serum sprung from the Olympiad onto her dusty iMac. I think the money the pols, all the pols get is exhorbidant. I don’t think O is lacking for funding. Weinstein may hand over the check but it’s not his to give. He is a party thrower. Much like Clinton wasn’t a president; he was a laundryman. Does that make O better or worse? His appeal is that he doesn’t steal. R we naive? Was JFK the son of a bootlegger? Was Camelot a Richard Roger’s tune? Will O win? It will be close. The polls are early and the fact that in the swing swing swing states it’s close is a very positive sign. His message this time is he’s honest. Americans get that. That will cost u thirty-five and change. The valet will get your limo.

Comments on: Dowd and Friedman

By: Aynn Ran Where

By: U Rang