Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged skills

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Bryan Pregon

Girl Scout Cookies and Learning Life Skills - 11 views

  •  
    Anyone interested in this should talk to me in class!
  •  
    WOO HOO!!! I love cookies. I was never a girl scout because most of my friends that were just complained of the drama within the troops. However, there are plenty of other activities you can do to gain the skills mentioned in this article. Just find something you like and stick with it.
  •  
    i gotcha if you have them tomorrow!
Bryan Pregon

Council Bluffs Schools blocking Facebook - 3 views

shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Oct 12 - No Cached
  •  
    I am curious if you agree or disagree with the decision. Here are excerpts from three documents the school district has sent me about the decision.
  • ...14 more comments...
  •  
    i think blocking it was 50/50, good for the kids that are addicted to changing their status, but bad for people who are on it during free time or lunch.
  •  
    I agree with Andrew because there are a lot of people that abuse he privilege, but then there are the ones that only get on when told that they can or in free time.
  •  
    I think that our school system is going way Wacko with this, with Facebook, yeah block it, but you should block it on the school's wifi not the chromes. you should be able to get on at you house. What is the harm there...? Its not like you are getting distracted from a teacher talking..... With the cell phones. Yeah, thats whatever... I understand that you aren't supposed to have them out during class, but only being aloud to have them during lunch and before or after school, it makes me feel like we are back in Jr. High, that was their policy. I even remember i went to work Kirn's show and i forgot that there was that rule and so i was walking down the hallway texting, i looked right at the teacher and said that i was in high school, she laughed and said sorry and gave it back. But i think with this rule the students will feel like that are being treated as jr high students again and i know that would make me frustrated. But not having a relaxed rule on cell phones students will just get super mad and well, teacher's and Administrators,, You're gonna have a bad time...
  •  
    I agree with Eric, it should just be blocked on the wifi, not the Chromes themselves because now the people who brought their own computers can get on facebook, or the people with internet on their phones can access it that way. So the school didn't block the students %100, they just made an obstacle for the students to get through, because I think we all know someone is going to find a way around it soon, like they did last year.
  •  
    I agree with Eric and Alex as well, just block it on their wifi during the school day.
  •  
    It does feel like we are still in Junior High. but how do most Students? certainly not like they are in high school. If people would act their age then you could use this statement. take a look around the hallways and you know what i am talking about. And when you are on facebook or any other website it is a distraction because you are zoned out of everything that is going on around you and ten minutes can easily turn into an hour or a couple of hours
  •  
    a good 3/4 of the conversations during class periods... maybe not everyone's but at least mine has been about getting around the the Facebook block. They say Facebook is distracting well it is for certain people that get on it constantly but what really is distracting is people constantly talking about how they are trying to get back on Facebook through the chromes. That's not distracting a select few it's distracting us all.
  •  
    I feel like if the school has such a big problem with Facebook they need to realize that although blocking Facebook from chromes will stop many students from getting on it the majority of us do have smart phones. Meaning we can still get on Facebook. I think that if a student doesn't know how to control their use on facebook during school they will have to deal with the consequences and that it wasn't necessary to block the site, it's called responsibility and if someone doesn't know how to be responsible then that's their problem. Also I don't understand why students aren't able to get on Facebook outside of school?
  •  
    I don't feel like blocking Facebook was very beneficial. High school is supposed to be preparing us for college or a career, in which we will have access to anything we want. How are we supposed to know how to limit distractions if we don't have the opportunity to do so now? On another note, the students who aren't doing their work now with Facebook unblocked still aren't generally going to do it even without that particular distraction.
  •  
    I agree with Rainie, Jaidlyn, and Olivia. The school board and the administrators don't know what we are thinking in class, yes they might see that a good portion of our students are on Facebook, but also, a good majority is paying attention and actually learning, I personally find Facebook a good tool for school, because there has been multiple times where I have no clue what so ever on what is going on so I go and ask some of my friends that are in college and ask them, and also my friends explain it so much better than Teacher's do, I feel as though most of the times teacher's just speak it so they can get paid, they don't go in depth to it. So I feel also that if they were teaching more hands on there would be less Facebook usage, well, at least there would be if it was unblocked.
  •  
    Sorry.. I realized that I didn't finish.. With what Rainie said, that is so true you can't sit through a whole class period with out hearing, "This is peeveing me off!" or "There has to be a way around it, that will be my project this weekend, to figure out what how to get around this dumb thing!"
  •  
    Personally, if the schools are trying to prepare us for the future, then why limit what we can do, and not do with the chromes? How does limiting us teach us good decision making skills? I mean, in the future, if you are at work and spend 4 hours of your time at work on facebook, you are gonna get fired. We should have it just to learn that we do not need it. Plus, students are just going to move onto the next thing. Like there are not a billion other things we are going to get on?
  •  
    I completely agree with Payton. There are so many things that aren't blocked and we can move right on to the next thing.
  •  
    I totally agree with both Eric and Payton, also what about using our phones, Ipods, and personal computers to get on FB at school. An I know most of the people on FB use it to waste time, what about the students using it during free time for good things like making a FB page for a club or a FB event for a soccer game?
  •  
    In response to Payton W: If an employee would get fired for wasting company time on Facebook, what is a logical penalty for teachers/administrators to administer to those who refuse to work? It is hardly a solution to take the computer away, since there is so much effort placed on getting kids to use them for class work. Of course we cannot "fire" our students like an employee. Following your logic, shouldn't "moving on to the next thing" also get you the same penalty? Isn't the real issue students wasting time (whatever it might be)?
  •  
    Mr. Pregon, the personal issue with this is, we can't go around blocking things all the time, that does not teach good choice-making skills. I know that one solution, that may only work in some situations, is that, make them do it by hand. I've seen teachers use this before, and noticed quiet a bit improvement on students taking it upon themselves to avoid facebook. Mr. Nelson, in Algebra 2 made someone solve a 3 variable question using Matrices by hand, which can take about 10 minutes for a single problem. That student has not been on facebook in his class, or at least caught, since. As for penalties, students do have privileged that teachers may take away, such as going to the bathroom during class. Although, that is unlikely to affect most students, it is hard to say whether or not that will have much affect. Perhaps a major punishment such as Monday school if caught so many times? I have no direct answer as to how this should work though.
Bryan Pregon

Children Exposed to Nicotine in Utero Have Lower Reading Scores | SciTech Daily - 1 views

  •  
    Interesting that they assume nicotene does this. 20% lower scores is pretty concrete results though.
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    I would like to see this put to test in AL or Council Bluffs and see if it is still accurate.
  •  
    Interesting
  •  
    It was not as surprising to me that these tests have happened. To me being exposed to nicotine while they are still in the developing process is very harmful. I don't think mothers should ever expose babies to that, if they want them to have a brighter future.
  •  
    if they were exposed to marijuana the would have had better reading scores
  •  
    I don't find this surprising. Nicotine is a known mutagen, so I think it's actually foolish to assume that it won't affect fetuses which are exposed to it. It will be interesting to see if this study actually gets any media attention, though. Unfortunately, I doubt it will. People, especially Americans, are usually content to overlook any negative consequences to their actions.
  •  
    A quick google search for the effects of nicotine on fetuses came up with a number of medical journals on the subject. Research into this subject has been done at last as far back as 1996, and smoking cigarettes during pregnancy is documented to have a large number of possible adverse outcomes even worse than poor reading skills, including spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and sudden infant death syndrome. Here's a link to an article from the Oxford Journal on the subject. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/116/2/364.full
Alex beck

Anonymous does the world some good - 0 views

  •  
    Recently the hacker activist group Anonymous used their skills to identify a man that may have been the cause of a recent teen suicide (Amanda Todd). I know the techniques they would have used were illegal, which makes me wonder about how rigid a law system should be.
  •  
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/16/amanda-todd-anonymous-tormentor-rcmp-scams_n_1971953.html I would like to believe that Anonymous actually is doing some good, but considering that they've never been involved in incidents like this in the past; and there have been many, many similar cases which appear on nationwide news; it seems unlikely.
Bryan Pregon

Donald Trump TIME Person of the Year: How We Picked - 34 views

  •  
    "It's hard to measure the scale of his disruption. Now surveys the smoking ruin of a vast political edifice that once housed parties, pundits, donors, pollsters, all those who did not see him coming or take him seriously. Out of this reckoning, Trump is poised to preside, for better or worse."
  • ...24 more comments...
  •  
    I don't feel like he disrupted anything and I feel like he's sticking to his ideas that will try to succeed America
  •  
    I believe that Donald Trump was the right choice for time magazine. Everyone has their point of view on him whether it is good or bad. I think that he will actually do good things for this country when he gets elected. He is on the cover of time magazine because they thought he had the greatest influence.
  •  
    I feel like it was the right choice because in the very first paragraph time says "This is the 90th time we have named the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year." Not saying he has done amazing or horrible things he has had the greatest influence on people and I agree on that.
  •  
    I agree with Landon, Donald Trump deserved to be named person of the year because set his plan to become president and "To Make America Great Again". His ideas may hurt our relationships with other countries, but he is focused to help our country first.
  •  
    I also believe that Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and he will try to help our country to the best of his ability.
  •  
    I would agree with Times choice to pick Trump because as it was stated at the very beginning of the article they named the person with the greatest influence.. For better or worse. Which I would agree with, whether or not you agree with Trump or you believe to deserves Presidency or not, he was one of the top influencers in 2016. You couldn't watch the news without hearing about him. He was very impactful in politics and news in the past year. So whether or not you support him he was one of the most influential people in the last year.
  •  
    I would agree Trump should get this. He won it because of the hard fought presidential campaign. He got made fun of etc.
  •  
    I'm not surprised that he won the person of the year, but I don't believe he deserves it.
  •  
    I have to say that I any happy that Trump did became President, he should the people to not think so lightly of him. He will do good for our country.
  •  
    Everybody has their view on who he is and what he is going to do. Although I don't agree that he should be on TIME person of the year, because there are others who deserve it just as much as him.
  •  
    I think him becoming "person of the year" is a little risky because Donald Trump really hasn't shown us, Americans, what his in capable of yet. Obviously he was capable of becoming president of the United States but what if were unsatisfied with his decisions in the upcoming year? Will Time Magazine regret making him person of the year?
  •  
    Not surprised he won person of the year, I do think we had better options and many people would agree that other would deserve this more than trump.
  •  
    I think he shouldn't have gotten "person of the year" because of what he said towards women and people of color. But other people may have think he deserved it. It's just a different opinion, but I wonder how this whole thing will turn out.
  •  
    Just in general there are many apposing factors about Trump, good ones are him being president and is going to help out communities and so on. Bad ones are Trump ends up being racist and sexist.In my personal opinion, there are many more apposing factors of bad and he is just a terrible person. But many can argue.
  •  
    Trump shouldn't have gotten person of the year. What he says about women and people of color and the way he treats them. That's not what the person of the year should be doing. Some people are for Trump and that's okay because that's their opinion. He'll be able to help out communities but many are against him for being racist and sexist. In my opinion he is a terrible person.
  •  
    Trump is the first president without government or military background to go with them. It's a new feeling in the office that some agree with and some don't.
  •  
    I think that whoever won the election would have won person of the year. Trump won the election and ended up winning the person of the year because he was influential, probably talked about the most and while he was supposed to fall out of the presidential race early on, he eventually won the presidency.
  •  
    i agree with matthew trumps just terrible person.
  •  
    I feel like people are so focused on who he is as a person and now who he can become, we can't change the fact that he is president whoever we can accept it.
  •  
    I really hope Donald can do good things for this country. I hope and wish that he will take back the bad and cruel things he has said about women, disabled people, people of color, etc,. I want him to keep his promises in making this country better. But I know he won't. I can't read his mind or read the future but from the looks of it, this can not turn out well. He should not have been chosen for people of the year. A great person, who is open-minded, strong and brave, accepting, a hero even, would make person of the year. But, instead, we all chose a sexist and racist man who has been elected for president. Cool.
  •  
    I agree with their decision to make him the person of the year because he deserved it and people all over the country were influenced by him in either a good or a bad way.
  •  
    I'm not surprised he was picked as person of the year
  •  
    I think that although many people think that it is not apt to be president but has many skills in the part of negotiating and thinking about whether it is a good investment or bad, it should give the opportunity to experience its way of working and if it gives the quality Appropriate to accept it because everything must be for the good of the country and of the people. And truly being president is very difficult and with a lot of organization and choose good decisions .
  •  
    Although I don't agree with how Trump spends his existence in this world I do think that it is appropriate to name him person of the year. The article said that he wasn't necessarily given the title because he has done good. I think this is a good title for him because a lot of 2016 attention has fallen on him, he has impacted a majority of America and weather he makes people happy or unhappy they were still giving him a reaction, so yes I think it is appropriate to name Donald Trump person of the year.
  •  
    When you first see that Donald Trump was named person of the year by TIME it really makes you wonder. After reading this article though it did answer many questions for me. For example, why? According to time it's not about being the best person it's more of who made a greater impact (good or bad). Which he did. He went from a casino owning business man, to President Elect Trump-- doing everything in his hands to influence the people of America to think in a pretty white way if you ask me. Either way, this was a good article it really did answer many questions I had. I bet this was the first time they voted someone person of the year by starting off-- hey it's not that we are on his side, but he made a big splash this year and we wrote on him.
  •  
    I don't think he should be the person of the year because even though he says he is going to do good things and has done some good things he has also done very bad things and said things about people.
lizretikis

Obama's vision of a nuke-free world is tested - 1 views

  •  
    Wildcard North Korea is edging closer to its goal of building a viable nuclear device, Pakistan continues to amass nuclear material at unmatched rates, and Russian officials openly discuss pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Europe. And the sharpening skills of computer hackers mean cyber threats to nuclear facilities are increasing, too.
  •  
    it seems interesting but i think that we should get rid of about half an up date the ones that we have left
Bryan Pregon

Armed protesters refuse to leave federal building in Oregon - CNN.com - 7 views

  •  
    I remember when we discussed Shays rebellion in class... that was in 1786. Is it 2016 already? I am really curious what you think of this situation.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I believe that the government is correct because they have already paid for the land, therefore it's theirs. Even though it was more than likely an accident I think that the sentencing should be brought down.
  •  
    I think that preserving wildlife is important, but not at the expense of the ranchers and farmers who were forced to sell their land. It doesn't matter how much money they were paid; now that they lost their source of income, once the money's gone, it's gone. And they'd have to get a new job in an occupation that requires a vastly different skill set. I'd be upset if my land was forced away from me so the government could undo all my hard work and make it into a wildlife preserve.
  •  
    While I find that the wild life is important, it was originally the farmer's land and they have the right to not sell their land. I could see where the government could find that the farmers were burning the land because they were angry, however, them burning it for poaching is a little far. It was both a son and father and they were marking where their property ended and the reserve started, this is very logical and I don't really understand where the government couldn't see that it got a little out of control. Fires can be unpredictable and are usually hard to control.
bigslide

House Republican introduces anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for... - 36 views

  •  
    so it says "House Republican introduces anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for school girls"
  • ...21 more comments...
  •  
    Im angry about this be because it's already been moving to pass in Mississippi, Connecticut, and Tennessee. It's sad to see so many people retaliate against the trans-community. They see us as disgusting monsters. They don't feel bad when they take away the rights of trans youth because of their lack of understanding of what being transgender actually is. I'm not speaking for all trans people, but I would have rather never been born than to be trans. for many reasons because most are too personal to say. and when old 1900s people take away our basic rights, and others seem to never care, it angers me.
  •  
    This is simply disgusting. Have people really become this ignorant and transphobic? Maybe they should... hear me out here... mind.their.business
  •  
    I personally agree that transgender women should be banned from women sports because biologically they are still male and for all of human history males have been proven to physically superior to females and when you put a transgender women whos been a male for most of their life vs a women whos been a woman all of her life it's gonna be pretty obvious whos gonna win I would hate to be a girl in a wrestling team and get destroyed by a transgender women whos been a male for the longest time ever.
  •  
    I disagree with the House of Republicans introducing anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for females. America is a free nation where everyone has the right to choose and be identified based on their gender decision. As a female and one day future mother, I suggest not allowing this legislation because it will only spread narcissism and homophobia. Females should never be forced to go through an "examination" to prove their gender. The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and we should maintain it active no matter what.
  •  
    I disagree, I think people have a right to be who they want and have a right to participate in the things that they want. Just because you fear what you don't understand doesn't mean you can force HUMANS to go through these traumatizing experiences so you can tell them they can't do something. They have a right to play sports if they want to and people shouldn't stand in their way.
  •  
    I completely disagree with this. This is teaching young girls that it's okay for people to expect you to show them their genitals, this is teaching young girls that they don't have the choice to say no, this is teaching young girls to let old white men control our lives and the way that we handle our bodies. This is only adding to the rape culture of the present day by teaching girls that we don't have control over our bodies.
  •  
    I disagree with this whole thing. Females have privacy and should keep it. I don't even see the big deal in allowing someone who identifies as female to play a sport that is only for girls. People should be able to be who they identify as without facing discrimination. I thought we've moved on already.
  •  
    I disagree with the legislation. No one should have to have their genitals checked just to play sports in general. Also, people in the trans community already face enough humiliation and bullying, the old white men writing the legislation should stop worrying about what sports trans people play and instead work on attempting to end the global pandemic at hand.
  •  
    how do you not see the problem with trans people playing sports? Men are scientifically stronger than females creating an unfair advantage. These trans people will just take opportunities away from women, like scholarships. If you are say a female wrestler, would you want to wrestle a male? No, because it's unfair.
  •  
    I disagree with this completely. We should not have to show our genitals or get them checked in order to play sports. The trans community gets so much hate and suffers enough as it is. The people writing the legislation need to quit being so concerned with the trans community and what sports they're playing and also quit trying to pass laws that could invade young womens privacy. It's disgusting that this is even being considered.
  •  
    Personally I think people should be allowed to do what they want, transgenders playing sports included. Politicians spend too much time creating conflict and fighting among themselves, which creates division among the people too
  •  
    I also feel like most don't really care about the highschool sport. They just don't want trans people participating. I think when they imagine a trans woman, they think of a pedo looking dude, or very masculine. When in reality, many trans women look very much like women. I understand a physical sport, like wrestling, but that's basically it. Maybe weight lifting, but everything else is just based on the fact that some people don't understand the transgender mind and body and how they work. Who cares about high school or middle school volleyball that much to be so concerned to want to check any women's genitals? invasion of privacy and just embarrassing.
  •  
    I 100% disagree with this. First off girls shouldn't have to show their genitals in order to play sports, it's an invasion of privacy and just disgusting. And secondly, this legislation perpetuates the idea that trans women aren't women, which simply isn't true. If a trans woman, or just a trans person in general, wants to play a sport on the team that aligns with their gender identity they should be able to.
  •  
    I completely disagree with the statement "I also feel like most don't really care about the highschool sport". These high school athletes put in many hours of their week into participating in their sport. These people care a lot. For some kids, this could be their only way out of a bad situation they are in. Also, it's not only wrestling that this would create an unfair advantage. Basketball, Soccer, Softball, Volleyball, Swiming. The list just goes on. If you say that "Most people don't care" you must not be involved in any type of sport seriously.
  •  
    true, I don't participate in sports. I guess I didn't think about how big and important even middle school sports can be, and I'm sorry bout that. What I was trying to say before is that most of the people passing these laws don't care about the sport. They just don't. They see Biden allow trans people back into the military, and they got mad. Another thing is that for the people saying it's a disadvantage, idk what to say to ya'll. Yall All could ban mentally disabled girls because it could "bring the team down". yall could ban stronger girls with muscle because they are "too strong compared to the other girls and its unfair". Anyone can make excuses to discriminate against a group they don't understand or care about and make it sound like they have the best of intentions. And maybe they do, but the fact they think they can stop the freedom of that individual because its unfair to them, shows the lack of understanding they have on that issue. I'm a trans person, and I personally live through small micro-aggressions and just blatant transphobia in my own house every day. So when I see discrimination with no consiterate thought on how to solve an issue (instead of finding a solution, they just ban people from playing all together) that's when I have an issue. I'm sorry this is long btw (:
  •  
    the fact that they could say "I also feel like most don't really care about their highschool sport" is wrong the people who participate in their high school sports aren't just doing it for fun that may be one of the only ways they can start a career they want or it may be their only way to get out of a bad situation they also take hours out of their weeks to perfect their skills I personally think most people just don't understand the time & dedication.
  •  
    I don't think that it should truly matter as long as they are doing what they need. The girls who are putting time and dedication into the sport should get to play, that is all that matters.
  •  
    I agree with the ban because I feel it would always result in an unfair advantage however if there are ways to make it fairer then I suppose I would have no real problem with it
  •  
    I disagree with this because it could allow children to think that other people looking at their genitals and that's just disgusting. Also, I feel like someone who is transgender is going to be taking certain hormones to change their body and while they are transitioning they shouldn't have the possibility of being looked at in this way because trans people already struggle with body dysphoria and this may just worsen it.
  •  
    I feel like if you were born a male then it is fair to switch to a female or do whatever makes you happy but, it is definitely unfair for someone with the genetic make-up of a man to be competing against women in sports. Man are known to generally be stronger and more athletic than women and I feel like if they were competing in a physical activity it would never be fair.
  •  
    This is a disgusting bill that has begun passing in some conservative states. The people writing these don't understand that Transgender (Male to Female) start hormone therapy that degrades their muscle building and strength overall so people would not have that much of an advantage. Also, no one is upset if it was a Transgender female to male.
  •  
    Whether you think transgender athletes should be able to participate in sports or not I think this bills is unacceptable and unethical because it allows for a challenge where an examination of the students genitals is required. In high school sports a place known a lot of times for coaches sexually assaulting young athletes and taking advantage of them I don't think under any circumstance a proposition like this should be acceptable.
  •  
    I do believe that this bill violates citizens' rights and is unethical. People should be allowed to be trans and should be allowed to identify as one. However, when it comes to sports they still should be separated because even if I was a woman it is still conflicting with nature. If the woman/woman is ok with the competition then it's fine to me.
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20 items per page