MattPie

Sick baby.

I still have a good feeling about this one. My daughter apparently sharted all over the place this afternoon, I'm calling it an omen.

Zenon, is that you? http://twitter.com/ZenonKonopka/status/292872733556092928/photo/1

Every technological innovation from the printing press on brought the idea that "the kids will be able to learn!". To a degree they're right, but they all bring more distractions which snare far more people than the educational benefit. But it's like any other time (well, since the radio era at least); if you're motivated there's a wealth of learning available if you want to seek it out. Few people do, opting instead to become obsessed with TV, fads, and (ahem) sporting teams. So what you're saying is if big government mandated that all teachers have an advanced degree in teaching as well as some other discipline, the overall education quality in the country would improve? Surely not!

I guess my worry is that school boards are rarely (ever?) comprised of education professionals but of people elected from the community (whom aren't always elected because they're sensible champions of education). But on a bigger scale, if the schools at the local or state level are capable of self-regulating, why aren't they? How come schools in New York are better than Oregon, etc.

I'd be awesome if the Thursday thread was open.

I remember reading somewhere that players said having the net away from the end boards meant it took longer for passes or to skate the puck to the front, giving the defending team more time to react.

Truth. :) OK, how about the season trend is the Sabres lose roughly 3 of 4 games, losing 2 of the last 4 means they're over their average and at this point I expect them to regress back to the mean rather than suddenly get better. But over a short span they certainly could perform above average. That's what I mean when I say, "I don't think they'll win-out". :p

More likely as in "more likely that getting both?" Sure. It's most likely than the Sabres end up 30th since I don't think they'll win-out.

Well aren't you just the fancy-pants cook! I strive to make dinner nice, but my best attempt is something that was as good as dogshit.

It's a failing I have, I need to have at least a little bit of a framework that I can believe in to truly enjoy on-screen entertainment. Arrow just seems too improbable, even taking into account that we're talking about comics.

I'm having a tough time thinking of any subject, other than local history, that benefits by letting schools decide what to teach and not having a basic standard curriculum. Teacher evaluation I'm with you on that shoudl be local, but why should kids be taught math, science, or other subjects differently depending on where they live?

I watched the first season, but I couldn't even get close to suspending disbelief and so I haven't gotten back to it.

Can we get a meddling trial for NBC making Fallon do hockey humor?

While I agree in general, there's no doubt that in order to function in society kids should really learn a certain set of things. The debate is what those things are. I think, generally speaking, it's better for the country if kids in New York, Texas, Oregon, etc. all get the same education, although there's no reason that education needs to be entirely rigid as it seems like the current trend. But LGR makes the best point: kids with involved parents will generally be fine since learning doesn't only happen in the classroom. My wife is very big on private school, saying that public school was terrible and a waste of time (she was in private high school for a year but public the rest of the time). Whereas I'm a product of public school (both high school and college) and I did fine. The funny thing? We went to the same high school and graduated the same year. I really think the difference is my parents were very pro-learning and encouraged us to do well. Her parents weren't nearly as involved as mine were and in a lot of ways she slipped through a few cracks.

We really need that "Block Thread" option for this and the TV-related stuff.

Fixed that for you! :)

I assume you mean 4 and 14. As I said, I'll take a 1 in 100 shot at BOTH McDavid and Eichel over the schadenfreude of Pittsburgh missing the playoffs. At this point, I don't think there are any hockey outcomes that I'd prefer over that 1 in 100 chance.

Unless the balls pop out the right way and that 1% (or is it 0.5%?) chance wins. I'd take that slim possibility over seeing some team I dislike miss the playoffs.

Still hoping Arizona comes through on Thursday night so we all can cheer for a 3-game winning streak. Although if losing to the Pitts pushes the Islanders out of the playoffs, I'll take the one-in-200 shot that Buffalo picks 1 (Isles pick wins lottery) and 2 (Buffalo Pick) instead of one more win.

This!

The Sabres have a coming log jam. They have a bunch of C and LW prospects that are looking promising, but few RW. Rather than put a reasonably talented guy on the fourth line where he won't be playing to his potential, it probably makes sense to keep Cody Mc (or pick up the equivalent on the market) and use these assets to bring in better RWs.

I assume Calgary's win makes it tougher though, yes?

There may come a day when the clench of men fail and the shart is upon us, but today is not that day.

Cal-gary had 18 shots in the first, to AZ's 7. I doubt we see a 54-shot game, but you never know.