A religion that takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion.
Senin, 21 Juni 2010
Disadvantages of Home Schooling
By: Kris Koonar
If you are concerned about the education your child is receiving at either a public or private school, you may have considered the option of home schooling. There are many advantages to home schooling that are easy to think of, but in making your decision you must also consider the disadvantages. Yes, despite all the bonuses you can think of in home schooling your child, there are many disadvantages to the process.
Home schooling is a process that requires a massive amount of time and dedication. If you want to home school your child you must be present for a large part of the day. Kids are kids. Depending on how motivated by academic success your child is, he or she may not require constant supervision. However, in many studies, parental supervision is the key behind the success of home schooling programs.
Parents must also possess instructional skills or access to someone who can teach effectively. Simply putting your child in a room with textbooks will most likely result in home schooling failure. In addition, you will have to purchase materials that public and private schools provide for students.
There is also the need to be able to serve as guidance counselor as your child may require specialized instruction due to a learning disability. Public and private schools usually provide these services with qualified individuals.
One important benefit of an academic institution is the opportunity for children to become properly socialized. Attending school with other children from all walks of life leads to the development of social skills. One of the disadvantages of home schooling is the relative isolation children have from their peers.
Many parents find comfort in blaming the educational system for the shortcomings in their child's academic performance. If you choose to home school you will be accepting full responsibility for the outcome of your child's education. This is more of a burden than it seems. Studies have shown that many home schooling ventures fail due to the fact that the home generally lacks qualified educators. Many parents have gripes about teachers, but the fact is that they generally have to teach large classes filled with children with diverse learning needs. In addition, certified educators have taken teaching classes and have passed state examinations to receive their teaching certificates.
When you approach the issue of home schooling you must examine both sides. Sure, there are plenty of advantages, but if you forget to look into the disadvantages, you may be setting yourself up for failure.
If you are concerned about the education your child is receiving at either a public or private school, you may have considered the option of home schooling. There are many advantages to home schooling that are easy to think of, but in making your decision you must also consider the disadvantages. Yes, despite all the bonuses you can think of in home schooling your child, there are many disadvantages to the process.
Home schooling is a process that requires a massive amount of time and dedication. If you want to home school your child you must be present for a large part of the day. Kids are kids. Depending on how motivated by academic success your child is, he or she may not require constant supervision. However, in many studies, parental supervision is the key behind the success of home schooling programs.
Parents must also possess instructional skills or access to someone who can teach effectively. Simply putting your child in a room with textbooks will most likely result in home schooling failure. In addition, you will have to purchase materials that public and private schools provide for students.
There is also the need to be able to serve as guidance counselor as your child may require specialized instruction due to a learning disability. Public and private schools usually provide these services with qualified individuals.
One important benefit of an academic institution is the opportunity for children to become properly socialized. Attending school with other children from all walks of life leads to the development of social skills. One of the disadvantages of home schooling is the relative isolation children have from their peers.
Many parents find comfort in blaming the educational system for the shortcomings in their child's academic performance. If you choose to home school you will be accepting full responsibility for the outcome of your child's education. This is more of a burden than it seems. Studies have shown that many home schooling ventures fail due to the fact that the home generally lacks qualified educators. Many parents have gripes about teachers, but the fact is that they generally have to teach large classes filled with children with diverse learning needs. In addition, certified educators have taken teaching classes and have passed state examinations to receive their teaching certificates.
When you approach the issue of home schooling you must examine both sides. Sure, there are plenty of advantages, but if you forget to look into the disadvantages, you may be setting yourself up for failure.
Budget Surplus Increases on Lower Spending on Goods
TEMPO Interactive, Jakarta: The Finance Department reported rising budget surplus this year compared to the surplus recorded in the same period last year as due to lower spending on goods and capital goods in state departments and institutions.
Surplus soared over five fold to Rp60.3 trillion until May 15th from Rp11.7 trillion a year earlier.
Director genearl of Treasury of the Finance Department Herry Purnomo said up to June 15 state revenue was at Rp386.7 trillion or 39 percent of total projection.
Domestic revenue is at Rp385 trillion, which consisting of tax and non tax revenue. Reported tax revenue is Rp300.5 trillion which made up of domestic tax Rp290.4 trillion and international trade taxes Rp10,1 trillion. While non tax revenue is at Rp85.9 trillion and revenue from grant at Rp167.3 billion.
On the other side of the balance, total spendings until May 15th is at Rp326.3 trillion.
Central government have spent so far about Rp198.7 trillion, regional government Rp127.6 trillion. State employees expenditures is at Rp62.3 trillion, spending on goods Rp25.5 trillion and spending on capital goods at Rp14.4 trillion.
Lower spending on goods or procurement according Vice Finance Minister Anny Ratnawati was caused by slow disbursement and tender process.
IQBAL MUHTAROM
Surplus soared over five fold to Rp60.3 trillion until May 15th from Rp11.7 trillion a year earlier.
Director genearl of Treasury of the Finance Department Herry Purnomo said up to June 15 state revenue was at Rp386.7 trillion or 39 percent of total projection.
Domestic revenue is at Rp385 trillion, which consisting of tax and non tax revenue. Reported tax revenue is Rp300.5 trillion which made up of domestic tax Rp290.4 trillion and international trade taxes Rp10,1 trillion. While non tax revenue is at Rp85.9 trillion and revenue from grant at Rp167.3 billion.
On the other side of the balance, total spendings until May 15th is at Rp326.3 trillion.
Central government have spent so far about Rp198.7 trillion, regional government Rp127.6 trillion. State employees expenditures is at Rp62.3 trillion, spending on goods Rp25.5 trillion and spending on capital goods at Rp14.4 trillion.
Lower spending on goods or procurement according Vice Finance Minister Anny Ratnawati was caused by slow disbursement and tender process.
IQBAL MUHTAROM
Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?
By John Blake, CNN
(CNN) -- Billy Wharton should be happy.
"Socialized health care" is on its way. The "socialist agenda" is taking over America. And best of all, Barack Obama, a "committed socialist ideologue," is in the Oval Office.
But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.
"We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."
Are many Americans secret socialists?
Obama's opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton.
"He's the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans."
He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.
"It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is."
Definitions of socialism vary, but most socialists believe workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own or control them.
Not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.
Some of the socialist agenda is already part of American life, according to Wharton and others.
Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits -- all reflect socialistic values, says Van Gosse, an associate professor of history at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who has researched socialist movements in the United States and Latin America.
The widely accepted notions of public education and Pell Grants for college students are socialistic in origin, Gosse says. They fit well with the socialistic premise that government should provide basic security from the cradle to the grave to all of its citizens, he says.
"We assert that education should not be left up to the private market -- where those who can pay, get it and those who can't, don't get it," Gosse says. "It's a common good and in that sense it is a socialistic institution even if the U.S. remains a capitalist nation."
Why socialists hate Obama's health care bill
Those who call Obama a socialist, though, point to his policies. Big on their hit list: "Obamacare," which they call "socialized medicine."
Socialists scoff at the notion. They don't applaud the passage of the recent health care bill either. They wanted a national "single-payer" health insurance plan with a government option. The bill that Obama championed didn't have any of those features.
Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change -- something a socialist wouldn't accept.
"Most of it was authored by the health care industry," Wharton says. "I call it the corporate restructuring of health care."
Other critics point to Obama's Wall Street bailout -- which actually had its roots in the Bush administration. Critics say it's socialistic for government to assume control of private industry.
Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says the bailout had nothing to do with socialism. Llewellyn says a socialist leader would have at least nationalized some of the troubled banks.
"He gave them [the banks] too much with no strings attached," Llewellyn says. "Banks that were too big to fail are bigger, and they can still fail."
How about Obama's bailout of the Detroit auto industry? During the bailout, the federal government assumed partial ownership of General Motors. "It's not socialism," Llewellyn says. "The mere fact that the government owns something or has a stake in it, doesn't make it socialist. If that was true, you would say that we have a socialist army. The government owns the army."
Defining socialism is complex, Llewellyn says, but it starts with a simple goal: Socialists want to introduce democratic features into the economy to reduce inequality.
The economy has "to be run for the overall benefit of the entire population, not for the benefits of a very few people. "By that measure, Obama's economic policies are not socialist, he says. "He's trying to save capitalism from itself rather than a radical trying to change into a new system," Llewellyn says.
This kind of name-calling is not new. Civil rights demonstrators and the politicians who passed Medicare were also called socialists and communists, Llewellyn says."Every time an expansion of the public's right has been put forward, Republicans have called it extreme, communistic and socialistic. It's a repeated tactic because they can't defeat the idea."
A Tea Party member explains why Obama is a socialist
Those arguments don't sway Conrad Quagliaroli, a Tea Party member who says Obama is a socialist.
He says that Obama's voting record as a senator was more to the left than the U.S. Senate's sole socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
He says Obama's association with radicals and his pledge to "spread the wealth" seal his socialistic credentials.
"The role of government is to provide a safe environment to conduct business, not to take from one and give to the other," says Quagliaroli, a financial planner who lives in Woodstock, Georgia.
Quagliaroli was not persuaded by the arguments of other socialist leaders who reject the idea that Obama is a socialist. "He's just not socialist enough for them."
Quagliaroli says he doesn't like socialism because it breeds mediocrity and encourages people to "live on the dole." Capitalism "breeds excellence" because it encourages initiative, he says.
Does that mean that Quagliaroli will refuse his Social Security checks, a government program that has been described as socialistic, and which he opposes?
Not necessarily, says Quagliaroli. He says he'll accept his Social Security checks for two reasons.
"They confiscated it from me to begin with, and the more money they give me, the less they'll have to waste," he says. "I can spend it better than they can. I don't pay $500 for a hammer."
The argument over Obama's ideology may rage on, but at least one socialist says another prominent politician ought to be inserted into the debate.
Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.
This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.
If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don't look to Obama.
"To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."
(CNN) -- Billy Wharton should be happy.
"Socialized health care" is on its way. The "socialist agenda" is taking over America. And best of all, Barack Obama, a "committed socialist ideologue," is in the Oval Office.
But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.
"We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."
Are many Americans secret socialists?
Obama's opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton.
"He's the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans."
He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.
"It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is."
Definitions of socialism vary, but most socialists believe workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own or control them.
Not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.
Some of the socialist agenda is already part of American life, according to Wharton and others.
Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits -- all reflect socialistic values, says Van Gosse, an associate professor of history at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who has researched socialist movements in the United States and Latin America.
The widely accepted notions of public education and Pell Grants for college students are socialistic in origin, Gosse says. They fit well with the socialistic premise that government should provide basic security from the cradle to the grave to all of its citizens, he says.
"We assert that education should not be left up to the private market -- where those who can pay, get it and those who can't, don't get it," Gosse says. "It's a common good and in that sense it is a socialistic institution even if the U.S. remains a capitalist nation."
Why socialists hate Obama's health care bill
Those who call Obama a socialist, though, point to his policies. Big on their hit list: "Obamacare," which they call "socialized medicine."
Socialists scoff at the notion. They don't applaud the passage of the recent health care bill either. They wanted a national "single-payer" health insurance plan with a government option. The bill that Obama championed didn't have any of those features.
Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change -- something a socialist wouldn't accept.
"Most of it was authored by the health care industry," Wharton says. "I call it the corporate restructuring of health care."
Other critics point to Obama's Wall Street bailout -- which actually had its roots in the Bush administration. Critics say it's socialistic for government to assume control of private industry.
Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says the bailout had nothing to do with socialism. Llewellyn says a socialist leader would have at least nationalized some of the troubled banks.
"He gave them [the banks] too much with no strings attached," Llewellyn says. "Banks that were too big to fail are bigger, and they can still fail."
How about Obama's bailout of the Detroit auto industry? During the bailout, the federal government assumed partial ownership of General Motors. "It's not socialism," Llewellyn says. "The mere fact that the government owns something or has a stake in it, doesn't make it socialist. If that was true, you would say that we have a socialist army. The government owns the army."
Defining socialism is complex, Llewellyn says, but it starts with a simple goal: Socialists want to introduce democratic features into the economy to reduce inequality.
The economy has "to be run for the overall benefit of the entire population, not for the benefits of a very few people. "By that measure, Obama's economic policies are not socialist, he says. "He's trying to save capitalism from itself rather than a radical trying to change into a new system," Llewellyn says.
This kind of name-calling is not new. Civil rights demonstrators and the politicians who passed Medicare were also called socialists and communists, Llewellyn says."Every time an expansion of the public's right has been put forward, Republicans have called it extreme, communistic and socialistic. It's a repeated tactic because they can't defeat the idea."
A Tea Party member explains why Obama is a socialist
Those arguments don't sway Conrad Quagliaroli, a Tea Party member who says Obama is a socialist.
He says that Obama's voting record as a senator was more to the left than the U.S. Senate's sole socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
He says Obama's association with radicals and his pledge to "spread the wealth" seal his socialistic credentials.
"The role of government is to provide a safe environment to conduct business, not to take from one and give to the other," says Quagliaroli, a financial planner who lives in Woodstock, Georgia.
Quagliaroli was not persuaded by the arguments of other socialist leaders who reject the idea that Obama is a socialist. "He's just not socialist enough for them."
Quagliaroli says he doesn't like socialism because it breeds mediocrity and encourages people to "live on the dole." Capitalism "breeds excellence" because it encourages initiative, he says.
Does that mean that Quagliaroli will refuse his Social Security checks, a government program that has been described as socialistic, and which he opposes?
Not necessarily, says Quagliaroli. He says he'll accept his Social Security checks for two reasons.
"They confiscated it from me to begin with, and the more money they give me, the less they'll have to waste," he says. "I can spend it better than they can. I don't pay $500 for a hammer."
The argument over Obama's ideology may rage on, but at least one socialist says another prominent politician ought to be inserted into the debate.
Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.
This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.
If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don't look to Obama.
"To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."
Tips and tools on Social CRM: Food for thoughts from Altimeter and CMO’s Guide
Source:
http://www.weblog.customercentric.org/2010/03/tips-social-media-crm/
I found this information useful if you need to consider Social CRM (Altimeter) and related decision making tools (CMO’s Guide).
You might be interested by additional content I published earlier this year on this subject.
Social CRM: The New Rules of Relationship Management
88888888888888888
http://www.weblog.customercentric.org/2010/03/tips-social-media-crm/
I found this information useful if you need to consider Social CRM (Altimeter) and related decision making tools (CMO’s Guide).
You might be interested by additional content I published earlier this year on this subject.
Social CRM: The New Rules of Relationship Management
88888888888888888
Some Insigths on Social Media: Social CRM and research from Razorfish
How to capitalize on engagement with consumers through Facebook and use it afterwards in a Newsletter?
I have found these studies useful as sources of “Food For Thoughts”.
Obviously, it is relevant as long as your customers are using Social Media
Enjoy your reading.
I have found these studies useful as sources of “Food For Thoughts”.
Obviously, it is relevant as long as your customers are using Social Media
Enjoy your reading.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)