Members Geoff G

May 4 2011: My thoughts exactly.

Apr 10 2011: Maybe a panic button that also automatically dials the cops?

Apr 10 2011: No one's gonna care that they're stuck in traffic if they can play angry birds (or read or watch TV or TED talks or nap etc.) while they wait.

Apr 7 2011: Not in the slightest. ;)

Mar 23 2011: My favorite line, "Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air" seems to fly in the face of your summary. It sounds more like she wants her daughter to experience life to the max, hardship included. She's making the argument hardship is an essential element of the human condition, not one she'd shield her daughter from.
PS. Clichés with slight twists populate many modern poems, for sure, but at least it isn't pop music.

Mar 12 2011: But could you have told me about the sentence complexity dipping to lift the kid out of baby talk? Maybe you could; I don't have kids so I wouldn't know.

Feb 17 2011: This just makes me want to make friends with people of a variety of ethnic backgrounds to get them to teach my kids as many languages as possible. Would I be breading ideal diplomats or my own undoing as they talk amongst one another in languages I can't understand?

Feb 17 2011: Although I agree with Patricia for the most part (human contact is definitely key), I wanted to point out that the babies exposed to video did seem to improve slightly. It was an almost negligible improvement, but it was on the graph nonetheless.
Maybe as kids get older they get used to the TV screen as a kind of one way communicating nanny and start to pick up more from it? Even a poor substitute does more good than nothing at all.

Feb 17 2011: Judging based on her graphs (the babies spoken to in mandarin were equally proficient to actual mandarin babies, not slightly less) and my experience with bilingual people, I would have to guess that no, it is not a zero sum game. It seems more like babies are capable of logging and fully learning a number of different languages based on the sounds that occur commonly in each.

Jan 31 2011: How can we have a conversation if all you do is yell talking points at me?
I'll take you to lunch if you promise to respond to one thing I actually wrote and back up your points with evidence/examples/links. (http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_lesser_take_the_other_to_lunch.html)

Jan 31 2011: Thanks for the link.

Jan 14 2011: (second post. Sorry I couldnt fit it into one) It's interesting that you make the same distinctions between liberals and conservatives that I do, but in reverse. I think one thing to pull away from this talk is that the reality is, both sides make form opinions on political issues based on emotional (moral) reactions - the rationalization that makes your side seem like the logical one occurs afterward and you assume the other side is illogical because you haven't spent the time trying to understand their point of view. Both sides can be backed up, but if you aren't exposed to the rationalizations of your opponent, you assume they doesn't exist.

Jan 14 2011: Huh. I've considered liberals to be the logical caste and conservatives to be the group that thinks with their gut more for a long time.
It seems logical, after all, to acknowledge the reality of your situation, note that it is constantly changing and recognize that in order to thrive in you must adapt your values, morals and beliefs to whatever modern society calls for. Conservatives generally want to preserve the values that have worked in the past without evaluating their relevance to the present. Liberal progressivism is incorrectly summarized by you as "expansion of government," it actually aims to address real problems with the best tool available.
Another example of unsubstantiated thinking comes directly from your post: "liberals want to censor while conservatives want to preserve freedom of speech." Have you forgotten that it was popular in the conservative camp to forbid dissent against authority in a time of war during the Bush years? That qualify as restrictions on speech?

Jan 14 2011: Nietzsche says we should be able to find our best enemy in a friend and that loving our neighbors (who are so much like us) is easy - we should try loving the ones furthest from us instead. Despite being taken advantage of by the Nazis, the dude had some intelligent things to say.
I find that having a best friend who is also an intelligent, conservative, Christian makes for a useful and challenging relationship. I can't find discussions more passionate and my views are always buoyed and made more precise through the process of explaining them to someone who doesn't share them.
Anyone have any thoughts on starting a "take the Other to lunch" program on college campuses? Sure college students tend to be pretty liberal, but if you paired up Business and Humanities majors, for example, I bet you could find some conflicting points of view.

Jan 14 2011: If you think people on TED are open to the ideas of conservatives you aren't paying enough attention to the comment boards. The up and down votes divide nearly perfectly along party lines.
You can find examples here on this video, but even better, watch http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html (or any of Al Gore's videos), read the comments and reconsider your praise of the TED community's openness to the Other's point of view.

Jan 13 2011: Great talk from an obviously excellent teacher. That adaptability and passion she possesses can't be taught or forced, it just has to happen. I hope the kids in her classes realize how lucky they are.

Jan 13 2011: I don't know if there are bad people...

I mean, except for the mentally ill and those with cripplingly low self-esteem, no matter what we believe about the world, our every action is an attempt to make it a better place. We don't all have the same picture in our heads and problems arise when people include only the welfare of themselves or their loved ones or believers of their religion or citizens of their nation in their estimation of the definition of the word "better," but still, regardless, every human shares that goal.

I might suggest what you call bad would be better labeled selfish. Some don't understand that the interconnections inherent between every individual make doing good for one's neighbor good for oneself in a very tangible way.

In any case, it's okay to recognize reality as long as you don't let the misguided prevent you from being the best that you can be, right? Like Williams says, don't wait for the other guy before you do good yourself.

Jan 13 2011: Wish I could give you more than one thumb for this comment.
There will not be peace until we can find a way to make it so profitable the multinationals have no choice but to invest.

Jan 12 2011: I know I'm a shmuck for promoting something I saw on the Colbert Report, but this www.Jumo.com website might actually satisfy your need for direction. The site, which was founded by one of the co-creators of facebook, lets you browse by interest through nonprofits working on a slew of problems the world is faced with. If you have resources like time or money that you aren't making full use of, this site might be able to help you find a project that interests you enough to make you contribute.

From their main page:

"We connect individuals and organizations working to change the world
– Find issues and projects you care about
– Follow the latest news and updates
– Support their work with your time, money, and skills"

Jan 12 2011: Check it out, its the "other guy" Jody Williams says we can't wait for.
Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are two different things. I think our Peace Laureate is more likely to be advocating the former while you're clearly fearing the latter. We don't necessarily need to even out the wealth to ensure that the majority of people who want to work hard have the resources (education and job opportunities) to succeed. What we need to give up to make equality of opportunity a reality is our laziness and fear of competition and enough volunteer time to make it happen.