Apr 18, 2016 - Lamya M. Najem – Classroom Technology: A Tool to Enhance Arabic. Ambady, who tested college students' immediate first impressions of. Their pages free of inappropriate material just for this reason, but. Azra Ali is the Principal of Huda School and Montessori, a private school located in Franklin. Visit Scholastic's website for kids about books, reading, authors, games & more. Kids connect to books through online friends in their community profiles.
Madeline Preschool & Kindergarten - from CD-ROM Access Null Madeline Classroom Companion: Preschool & Kindergarten Sold Out (Win95/98/ME/XP/Mac) (CDs w/ User's Guide) (MADPRE&KDO) Creative Wonders Children Ages: 4 to 6 Teaches Preschool & Kindergarten Essentials with over 50 Activities Madeline instills learning confidence in children as they explore 2 full years of learning on 2 CD-ROMs. Madeline Classroom Companion Preschool & Kindergarten is designed by educators to teach a full preschool and kindergarten curriculum. Each CD is dedicated to a full year of educational development and contains three skill levels, allowing children to all the skills from preschool, then grow into kindergarten. With over 50 activities to explore, learning has never been so much fun. Disk 1: Preschool With Madeline as your guide, visit the Bakery, Zoo and Playschool. Have fun playing activities which cover a complete preschool curriculum including letter identification, counting, shapes & colors and sorting.
Letters - Learn your letters as you play with Madeline at the zoo Numbers - Help Madeline count yummy baked goods at the bakery Nature - Visit the stationery store and learn about nature with Madeline Shapes & Colors - Identify simple shapes and colors as you and Madeline finish paintings in the Art Gallery Problem Solving - The Playroom is a mess! Use your thinking skills to help Madeline sort the toys.
![Franklin Franklin](https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1443235069l/26816972.jpg)
Disk 2: Kindergarten Disk 2 furthers your child's learning with activities that cover a full kindergarten curriculum. Learn addition and subtraction, early spelling, phonics, vocabulary and pattern recognition while exploring Madeline's neighborhood. Simple Spelling - Use your spelling skills to complete the tags at the General Store French & Spanish - Match labels - French, Spanish or English - to toys in the Playroom Madeline Songs & Video - Sing along with your favorite Madeline songs and stories in the Magic Theatre. Thinking Skills - Develop pattern recognition skills while making necklaces in the Jewelry Store Print Activities - Print out and play with fun away-from-computer activities including stickers & postcards Skill Chart - Over 50 Activities.
My piece is long. I wish it wasn’t but it is. Believe it or not it was once even longer. The first draft clocked in around 19k and then ballooned in edits to 21k, before shrinking down to a svelte 17k. (I think that’s where we ended up.) Like James Bennet, I tend to cringe a little when people praise things I write for being “long.” I’m a Gza guy: To many songs, weak rhymes that’s mad long Make it brief son, half short and twice strong Still working on that.
My brilliant editor Scott Stossel helped me lose a lot of fat, but I think next month I’ll send him some haiku. Still, there is one thing I would have liked to have said more about. I had a rather lengthy section toward the end on the intellectual roots of the Moynihan report. I am going to reproduce those paragraphs here.
These were neither fact-checked, nor copy-edited. It’s just “the raw.” I’m reproducing it this way for two reasons: 1.) I think it’s good for young writers, and even readers, to have some idea of what a first draft looks like. (In my case, it looks a lot like my blogging.) I think it’s important that people know that there is no magic in writing. It’s just pushing words. 2.) Had “Notes” existed at the time, I likely would have written something like this. It’s a redo for me. I think it’s cool to have an unedited record of how something strikes you.
To my mind, The Moynihan Report is rooted in some really ugly assumptions in mid-20 th century sociology and psychology about black people in general and black women in particular. The book that helped me process this, more than any other, is Daryl Michael Scott’s. I wish I could have said more about this theme, and that book, in the original piece. But without further adieu, here we go.
In 1967, TIME magazine put Moynihan on the cover, awarding him the unfortunate title of “urbanologist.” His solution to the problems bubbling up in the cities was familiar—“When these Negro GIs come back from Viet Nam, I would meet them with a real estate agent, a girl who looks like Diahann Carroll, and a list of jobs. I’d try to get half of them into grade schools, teaching kids who’ve never had anyone but women telling them what to do.” Later Moynihan would urge Nixon to embrace the ascending feminist movement in the 1970s, but in terms of the black family, he regarded women as junior partners. The senior partner, the male, is assumed to be a selfless champion of the family, not a mortal human with interests of his own. Moynihan writes about the twin institutions of “marriage” and “family” appear in his work as timeless and unmitigated goods. There is little consideration of domestic violence, rape or the costs of incentivizing families in which women are bound to men by a paycheck. Moynihan’s romantic view of the family, blinded him to the broad changes which were taking place not just in black families, but in American families. In his report he correctly noted that both black and white out of wedlock births were rising, but argued that concern should be centered on black families since they were starting from a higher baseline.
But it just as easily be argued that the country, as a whole, was experiencing a momentous shift most evidenced in its most vulnerable families. Indeed, sociologist Andrew Cherilin has shown that by Western standards, heterosexual unions in America are uniquely fragile. “Even if we look just at children born to married couples, American children were more likely to see their parents break up,” writes Cherlin. “In fact, children born to married parents in the United States were more likely to experience their parents’ breakup than were children born to cohabiting parents in Sweden.” Moynihan inability to see the power of black women as more than a problem, reflected an unfortunate trend among many late 19 th and 20 th century social scientists.
Black women, lacking in chastity, feminine grace and modesty, were often seen as the vessels of black pathology. “That an immense amount of concubinage and prostitution prevails among the colored women of the United States is a fact fully admitted by the negroes themselves.” wrote Frederick Ludwig Hoffman. Black women were in danger of being reduced to a “vast army of black prostitutes” claimed Du Bois at the turn of the century.
“Lax moral habits” haunted black households wrote Du Bois, a fact best illustrated in the “large amount of cohabitation without marriage.” E. Franklin Frazier—the most prominent black sociologists of his day—claimed that, even in marriage, black women lorded over black men leaving them “impotent, physically and socially.” Psychoanalysts like Abram Kardiner and Lionel Oveseey took the emasculation theme further and claimed that matriarchy left black men emasculated in the bedroom, while sociologist like Thomas Pettigrew claimed that matriarchy resulted in black men who displayed “a marked inability to maintain a marital relationship.” Civil rights activists Bayard Rustin concurred.
“Hearing men disparaged by his female relatives, and without affectionate attention from anyone, the black man’s self-esteem was lowered,” argued Rustin. “The submissive attitude he thus developed limited his ability to enter into a satisfactory marital relationship.” Black women were the primary targets of this analysis, but their deficiencies ultimately deformed black people at every level. Frazier argued that black people were without culture, since to him the term implied the transmission of “patterns of behavior” something black people lacked—“Among these people, there is no transmission of anything.” Frazier was, as the historian Daryl Michael Scott writes, effectively claiming that blacks “were outside the pale of civilization.
It was, in short, to claim they were savages.” This was the social science context in which Moynihan’s report was written (Frazier is cited repeatedly by Moynihan) and received. When James Farmer angrily claimed that blacks were “sick unto death of being analyzed, mesmerized, bought, sold, and slobbered over, while the same evils that are the ingredients of our oppression go unattended,” he was not pulling the charge from the ether. He was reacting to a body of scholarship which rendered black families as degraded and savage, and black women, specifically, as immoral and domineering. Much of this scholarship was written by liberals, some of whom were black. These social scientists were not segregationists and were generally horrified by lynching and discrimination. But there was a discomfiting amount of overlap which found liberal social scientists and white racists in agreement that blacks in the caricature of black families, while disagreeing over whether the caricature was mutable.
Racist or not, a persistent streak of contempt marked this school of liberal social science, a contempt inherited by Moynihan. People on welfare were “paupers” and “failed persons” according to him. “I’ve lived much of my life in a jungle of broken families, watching them tear out each other’s minds,” Moynihan told an interviewer. “Watching them feast on each other’s hearts.”. Would actually be awesome if folks read the report first. Here it is annotated. — Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) A reader comments on the that TNC points to above: Among other occupations, Moynihan was an academic.
His seminal work strikes me as being a way to establish his bona fides in the academic world, and unquestionably he was successful. At the time Moynihan, was a well-known figure in a cottage industry filled with recently minted academics; I’ve never thought this group added much to the debates of the time, and less so today. Essentially, Moynihan’s work was a gambit to have a seat at a table that had no open chairs. But another reader “couldn’t disagree more,” pointing to a —a May 4, 1964 memo from Moynihan offering LBJ policy prescriptions related to his upcoming report: Almost every point made in that Moynihan memo is right on and current today. The clarity of the message is a stark contrast to the muddled, finger-pointing, self-satisfied BS that passes for policy analysis today.
Read it for yourself. And is one more supplementary document—an April 20, 1964 memo from Moynihan to the U.S. Labor secretary making the case for more aggressive action on behalf of black Americans, nearly a full year before the Moynihan report was complete.
TNC’s cover story is. Much more debate and discussion to come, via. The Atlantic’s new cover story, “,” just dropped. It’s a sweeping essay from Ta-Nehisi Coates, with videos, photos, and annotations throughout, so you may want to settle into your favorite chair before reading.
From the first section: Our carceral state banishes American citizens to a gray wasteland far beyond the promises and protections the government grants its other citizens. Banishment continues long after one’s actual time behind bars has ended, making housing and employment hard to secure. And banishment was not simply a well-intended response to rising crime. It was the method by which we chose to address the problems that preoccupied Moynihan, problems resulting from “three centuries of sometimes unimaginable mistreatment.” At a cost of $80 billion a year, American correctional facilities are a social-service program—providing health care, meals, and shelter for a whole class of people. To listen to TNC narrate an illustrated intro to the essay,. Above is another video illustrated by Jackie Lay, narrated this time by sociologist Bruce Western, quoted in the title of this note.
Over the next several weeks, we’ll be airing all kinds of discussion and debate over TNC’s essay and a series of companion pieces, compiled. Email your own contribution to and we’ll do our very best to feature it. (For an example of this approach, over last month’s cover story on the new campus PC.) For the rest of the October 2015 issue,. The Notes section will be covering its contents throughout the month.
Well, that was the shortest, most easily resolved national emergency in U.S. Twelve hours ago, the president was preparing to set aside the regular process of law.
Eastern time? Perhaps somebody pointed out that 15-year civil-engineering projects do not look very convincingly like emergency measures.
![Free download program madeline classroom companion 1st franklin tn Free download program madeline classroom companion 1st franklin tn](http://www.lucy-ives.com/content/4-interviews/6-larb-radio-hour-on-impossible-views-of-the-world/larb-on-soundcloud.png)
“My house is burning! Time to begin the process of calling for design proposals for a new fire station.” President Donald Trump is about to discover the reverse side of Richard Neustadt’s famous observation that the most important presidential power is the power to persuade. Trump’s conduct as candidate and president long ago deprived him of any power to persuade anyone not already predisposed to support him. To date, Trump has governed by leveraging his high approval rating within the Republican Party. From the point of view of former Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Trump’s among Republicans mattered a lot more than his 39 percent approval rating among Americans in general.
Almost from the moment the camera blinked on in the Oval Office, it was clear that President Donald Trump was delivering a Stephen Miller special. The 33-year-old White House speechwriter has a hand in virtually everything the president reads from a teleprompter. But as one of the most strident immigration hawks in the West Wing, Miller has been especially influential over the past two years in shaping the way Trump talks about his signature issue. Tuesday night was no exception.
While it’s impossible to say just how much of the address he wrote, all of the tics and tropes of Millerian rhetoric were on display. The scary immigrants (“vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs”).
The gory anecdotes (a veteran “beaten to death with a hammer by an illegal alien”). The decidedly un-Trumpian flourishes (“a crisis of the heart, and a crisis of the soul.”). The day after Christmas, I spent seven hours sifting through more than 2,700 unread emails I had accumulated over the previous month. Like many other people, I intended to begin 2019 with a fresh inbox and zero unread messages. Since the idea of “Inbox Zero” was first coined in 2007 by Merlin Mann, a blogger who championed “,” it has become what many people consider the pinnacle of digital organization. Have been written on how to achieve Inbox Zero.
Products such as, and were all built to help make our inboxes more manageable. And a growing number of offices have instituted chat systems such as Slack to help minimize interoffice emails. A president only gets one chance to make his first Oval Office address—making Donald Trump’s reiteration of familiar talking points in a short speech Tuesday night all the more puzzling. Over the course of roughly 10 minutes, Trump brought his case for more spending on border security directly to the American people, saying there is “a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern border.” Trump argued that crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants are a serious danger to the American people, and called on Democrats to give him $5.7 billion to fund a wall on the border. But the president didn’t offer any new arguments. Nor did he declare a national emergency, a step he has said he is considering. Eric Young is the president of the union that represents the approximately 30,000 employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons who are working during the government shutdown.
Young’s members, scattered at 122 facilities located in largely rural areas across the country, aren’t being paid and don’t know when their next paycheck will come. Like the leaders of virtually every federal-employee union during the past three weeks, he has condemned the shutdown and its toll on innocent workers as “unconscionable.” “My personal opinion,” Young told me over the phone from his office in Alabama, “is that it constitutes involuntary servitude.” Neither Young nor any of his partners in union leadership will urge their members to do the one thing that would seem most natural for employees facing the same treatment in the private sector: If they don’t pay you, stay home. The Fox News host Tucker Carlson delivered a on the market and the family last week. It quickly found a large audience, becoming a viral sensation online. It also attracted a host of critics from across the political spectrum. Some of the fiercest criticism came from conservatives, including writers such as and, who attacked the very argument that we believe Carlson largely got right: Contemporary capitalism, small government conservatism, and elite negligence have all played a role in the fall of the working-class family.
Let’s review the three key points Carlson made regarding the erosion of marriage and family life in America. First, he argued that “increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford.” French, a senior writer for National Review, to the idea that only the rich can marry, arguing that “affluence is not a prerequisite for marriage.”. Donald Trump devoted remarkably little of his Tuesday-night Oval Office address to persuading Americans to support a border wall.
He discussed his beloved barrier for only a few sentences and didn’t rebut any of the criticisms commonly leveled at it. He never explained how the federal government would take possession of the land needed to build the wall, why migrants wouldn’t be able to climb over or dig under it, or even how much of the border it would actually cover. This inattention fits a pattern. Trump has never shown much interest in actually building a wall.
Last January, over cheeseburgers at the White House, Chuck Schumer to fund Trump’s wall in exchange for legalizing the undocumented “dreamers” who had come to the United States as children. But Trump the deal by demanding cuts in legal immigration. Then, the following month, —including all but three Democrats—voted for a bill to provide, including “physical barriers” and “fencing,” along with protections for the dreamers. But the White House spurned that legislation in favor of an enforcement-only bill that had no chance of passage. Nonetheless, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, recently that over the past two years, Congress has in fact “provided nearly $1.7 billion to build or replace fencing on the southern border.” The administration has spent only 6 percent of those funds. We had made plans to go to Washington weeks ago, and there was no way to change the trip. The train was almost empty when it pulled into Union Station on Friday night.
The next morning, we went out into the dead heart of the city. The government shutdown was in its third week. Nearly all the museums that would have interested the kids were closed, and so were the ones that would have bored them. There was nothing to do except wander around, but the crowds we expected in the district center were absent, the streets and sidewalks almost empty. Without people, the scale of the capital dwarfed us. Each mid-century concrete building looked like its own walled city, the National Mall was a vast plain, and an endless highway separated the White House and the Capitol dome. It was as if Washington had been stricken by a grotesque illness that caused the body to swell up and suffocate the spirit within.
The federal city was one great sarcophagus. Some people can walk into a room and instantly put everyone at ease. Others seem to make teeth clench and eyes roll no matter what they do. A small body of psychology research supports the idea that the way a person tends to make others feel is a consistent and measurable part of his personality. Researchers call it “affective presence.” This concept was first described nearly 10 years ago in.
They put business-school students into groups, had them enroll in all the same classes for a semester, and do every group project together. Then the members of each group rated how much every other member made them feel eight different emotions: stressed, bored, angry, sad, calm, relaxed, happy, and enthusiastic. The researchers found that a significant portion of group members’ emotions could be accounted for by the affective presence of their peers. There are a lot of fundamental problems with existence, but among the most pressing is that you need to feed yourself three times a day, basically every day, for, like, 80 years. If you’re an American woman, the stakes of food preparation are likely to be even higher.
Statistically, you’ll probably get married and have at least one kid, and although your family will probably need you to, you’ll also be saddled with, of which food acquisition and preparation is an omnipresent component. Lately, women’s trendiest ally in this battle is a kitchen-dwelling robot pod called an Instant Pot. The Instant Pot’s massive popularity—Amazon of the product during 2018’s Prime Day sale alone—is based on a simple promise. If users insert some ingredients, press some buttons, and pay careful attention to the details of a recipe, then out comes a hot meal of fresh ingredients, big enough to feed a family, in less time than traditional cooking methods take.
Well, that was the shortest, most easily resolved national emergency in U.S. Twelve hours ago, the president was preparing to set aside the regular process of law.
Eastern time? Perhaps somebody pointed out that 15-year civil-engineering projects do not look very convincingly like emergency measures.
“My house is burning! Time to begin the process of calling for design proposals for a new fire station.” President Donald Trump is about to discover the reverse side of Richard Neustadt’s famous observation that the most important presidential power is the power to persuade. Trump’s conduct as candidate and president long ago deprived him of any power to persuade anyone not already predisposed to support him. To date, Trump has governed by leveraging his high approval rating within the Republican Party. From the point of view of former Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Trump’s among Republicans mattered a lot more than his 39 percent approval rating among Americans in general. Almost from the moment the camera blinked on in the Oval Office, it was clear that President Donald Trump was delivering a Stephen Miller special. The 33-year-old White House speechwriter has a hand in virtually everything the president reads from a teleprompter.
But as one of the most strident immigration hawks in the West Wing, Miller has been especially influential over the past two years in shaping the way Trump talks about his signature issue. Tuesday night was no exception. While it’s impossible to say just how much of the address he wrote, all of the tics and tropes of Millerian rhetoric were on display. The scary immigrants (“vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs”). The gory anecdotes (a veteran “beaten to death with a hammer by an illegal alien”). The decidedly un-Trumpian flourishes (“a crisis of the heart, and a crisis of the soul.”). The day after Christmas, I spent seven hours sifting through more than 2,700 unread emails I had accumulated over the previous month.
Like many other people, I intended to begin 2019 with a fresh inbox and zero unread messages. Since the idea of “Inbox Zero” was first coined in 2007 by Merlin Mann, a blogger who championed “,” it has become what many people consider the pinnacle of digital organization. Have been written on how to achieve Inbox Zero. Products such as, and were all built to help make our inboxes more manageable. And a growing number of offices have instituted chat systems such as Slack to help minimize interoffice emails. A president only gets one chance to make his first Oval Office address—making Donald Trump’s reiteration of familiar talking points in a short speech Tuesday night all the more puzzling. Over the course of roughly 10 minutes, Trump brought his case for more spending on border security directly to the American people, saying there is “a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern border.” Trump argued that crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants are a serious danger to the American people, and called on Democrats to give him $5.7 billion to fund a wall on the border.
But the president didn’t offer any new arguments. Nor did he declare a national emergency, a step he has said he is considering.
Eric Young is the president of the union that represents the approximately 30,000 employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons who are working during the government shutdown. Young’s members, scattered at 122 facilities located in largely rural areas across the country, aren’t being paid and don’t know when their next paycheck will come. Like the leaders of virtually every federal-employee union during the past three weeks, he has condemned the shutdown and its toll on innocent workers as “unconscionable.” “My personal opinion,” Young told me over the phone from his office in Alabama, “is that it constitutes involuntary servitude.” Neither Young nor any of his partners in union leadership will urge their members to do the one thing that would seem most natural for employees facing the same treatment in the private sector: If they don’t pay you, stay home. The Fox News host Tucker Carlson delivered a on the market and the family last week. It quickly found a large audience, becoming a viral sensation online. It also attracted a host of critics from across the political spectrum.
Some of the fiercest criticism came from conservatives, including writers such as and, who attacked the very argument that we believe Carlson largely got right: Contemporary capitalism, small government conservatism, and elite negligence have all played a role in the fall of the working-class family. Let’s review the three key points Carlson made regarding the erosion of marriage and family life in America. First, he argued that “increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford.” French, a senior writer for National Review, to the idea that only the rich can marry, arguing that “affluence is not a prerequisite for marriage.”.
Donald Trump devoted remarkably little of his Tuesday-night Oval Office address to persuading Americans to support a border wall. He discussed his beloved barrier for only a few sentences and didn’t rebut any of the criticisms commonly leveled at it. He never explained how the federal government would take possession of the land needed to build the wall, why migrants wouldn’t be able to climb over or dig under it, or even how much of the border it would actually cover. This inattention fits a pattern. Trump has never shown much interest in actually building a wall. Last January, over cheeseburgers at the White House, Chuck Schumer to fund Trump’s wall in exchange for legalizing the undocumented “dreamers” who had come to the United States as children. But Trump the deal by demanding cuts in legal immigration.
Then, the following month, —including all but three Democrats—voted for a bill to provide, including “physical barriers” and “fencing,” along with protections for the dreamers. But the White House spurned that legislation in favor of an enforcement-only bill that had no chance of passage. Nonetheless, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, recently that over the past two years, Congress has in fact “provided nearly $1.7 billion to build or replace fencing on the southern border.” The administration has spent only 6 percent of those funds. We had made plans to go to Washington weeks ago, and there was no way to change the trip. The train was almost empty when it pulled into Union Station on Friday night. The next morning, we went out into the dead heart of the city.
The government shutdown was in its third week. Nearly all the museums that would have interested the kids were closed, and so were the ones that would have bored them. There was nothing to do except wander around, but the crowds we expected in the district center were absent, the streets and sidewalks almost empty. Without people, the scale of the capital dwarfed us. Each mid-century concrete building looked like its own walled city, the National Mall was a vast plain, and an endless highway separated the White House and the Capitol dome.
It was as if Washington had been stricken by a grotesque illness that caused the body to swell up and suffocate the spirit within. The federal city was one great sarcophagus. Some people can walk into a room and instantly put everyone at ease. Others seem to make teeth clench and eyes roll no matter what they do. A small body of psychology research supports the idea that the way a person tends to make others feel is a consistent and measurable part of his personality. Researchers call it “affective presence.” This concept was first described nearly 10 years ago in.
They put business-school students into groups, had them enroll in all the same classes for a semester, and do every group project together. Then the members of each group rated how much every other member made them feel eight different emotions: stressed, bored, angry, sad, calm, relaxed, happy, and enthusiastic. The researchers found that a significant portion of group members’ emotions could be accounted for by the affective presence of their peers. There are a lot of fundamental problems with existence, but among the most pressing is that you need to feed yourself three times a day, basically every day, for, like, 80 years.
If you’re an American woman, the stakes of food preparation are likely to be even higher. Statistically, you’ll probably get married and have at least one kid, and although your family will probably need you to, you’ll also be saddled with, of which food acquisition and preparation is an omnipresent component. Lately, women’s trendiest ally in this battle is a kitchen-dwelling robot pod called an Instant Pot. The Instant Pot’s massive popularity—Amazon of the product during 2018’s Prime Day sale alone—is based on a simple promise. If users insert some ingredients, press some buttons, and pay careful attention to the details of a recipe, then out comes a hot meal of fresh ingredients, big enough to feed a family, in less time than traditional cooking methods take.