The Friday Letter 031106

In the United States they decided that internet gambling was not a good thing and was far to easy. Obviously, there had been poor and rich people alike who had fallen victim of this habit. And so, the powers that be over the pond put in place a law to stop money being transfered from back accounts to the on-line gambling companies. This basically stopped all on-line gambling in the States. Now, I don't usually agree with what they do over there, but this time I thought that they might of actually got it right. You can't ban gambling, the prohebition era of the twenties and thirties proved that, but you can make it difficult. So, waht does the British Government decide to do? After seeing something good coming out of the States, they ignor it and decide that that if the on-line gambling companies can make money out of this then so can gevernment, and to hell with the addicts. How stupid can they be. The UK has rising debt, and to have gambling, no matter how regulated, will make matters worse. Its bad enough with the lottery. When the lottery first started, I saw children go without food so the parents could buy 'that' ticket which would get them out of trouble. But 'that' ticket never came. Not to them. Now, they know it's not going to work, so they look for the next easy way to 'get out of this hole'. On-line gambling is a way. It's not the rich who suffer, they made their wealth through being careful, wieghing up the risks, it will be the poor who will suffer. So instead of helping the people they represent they make it easier for the poor to stay poor and help the poor become poorer, and the rich become rich. When the poor become poorer their health suffers, their children suffers, more for the NHS and child support agencies to do. Why doesn't the UK government follow the US in this one (like they seem to do with others) and help the poor not become poorer.

Whats in a name?

A lot it seems. The owners of www.utube.com is filling a lawsuit against www.youtube.com. Utube.com website in August got 68 million hits, and shut down in early October just before Google anounced plans to buy YouTube.

Buying to 'save' the world.

A few days ago I heard about the idea of buying plots of rain forest to stop it being cut down. Nice thought if it could be policed. I think to protect 'my plot' I feel I'd have to go and live there or pay a fortune for someone to do it for me.
Now, an animal welfare group is enlisting the hep of eBay to protect endangered fin whales hunted by Icelandic ships. The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) will auction "rights" to a whale's life on the online site.
WSPA wants to raise $180,000 (£95,000), the value of meat from a fin whale; it then aims to pay this sum to hunters, and ask them to let one whale go.
Iceland's return to commercial whaling after a 20-year halt has brought diplomatic protest from many quarters.
On Wednesday, a group of 25 countries delivered a demarche, a formal letter of protest, to the Icelandic government through their ambassadors in Reykjavik. See Whales for saving by eBay auction

Education, education, Education...

I've just been reading about and listening to (on the radio and TV) information on the legislation on booster seats for children. Now I'm in favour of safety, but it looks as if this has been brought in on the thoughts that more and more children are die-ing in road traffic accidents and therefore the children must be strapped in safely so that if the vehicle they are in does happen to have an accident, the child would be safe. A fair assumption. But, when there is a traffic accident, surely there is more to protect than the child. What about the adult sitting next to child, the pedestrian walking beside the speeding traffic, the white van driver making deliveries and therefore not required to ware a seat belt, and driver of said vehicle... I could go on. Will those in charge of making legislation be looking in to these areas as well and coming up with more 'restrictive' measures. Wouldn't it be better if we were all strapped in with 5 point harnesses and a roll cage to boot, at least then we'd be as safe as the Formula 1 boys.

A few weeks ago there were articles in various newspapers and on the television and radio about the quality of the exams and whether they were hard enough or not because it seemed that too many students were getting higher and higher grades. I don't blame the students for being up in arms about this as they aren't the ones who decided on the characture of the exams or the content of their courses. The examing boards where saying that the exams weren't becoming easier, but the students were working harder and passing well. The results speak for themselves.

And just now at the Labour Party Conference it was announced that course work would now be done in school under supervision to stop cheating, (as if any student would dare to!) and that it was found that internet web sites where 'geared-up' to help students. You can look at this in two ways, one, well done to the student for their initiative and finding out how to get a task done well and for the minimum work, or, you could tear them off a strip for not entering into the course work in a manner that would benefit them in the long term, eg, do it right now and then take the short cuts later if it works. By using their initiative the student have undermined there own education because there will come a point where short cuts will not do and the long way is the only way and then the student would not know what to do.

This has made me think that maybe, just maybe, we've been heading down the wrong road. I always thought that tests, like the road test and exams like the ones we've all take at school, were there to check what we have learnt and whether we can use it effectively. I get the impression that now that everything seems to be heading for league tables and 'a competitive market' (whatever that means?) that students are being taught how to pass the exam rather than letting the exam be a check on what they have been learnt and to a lesser degree how well the teachers taught. I do believe that this is a dangerous path to tread. Without the necessary skills to use the knowledge gained in education we will have a generation who can excel at passing exams but nothing else. Taking this to the road, wouldn't it be better to teach and educate drivers-to-be how to drive and use a half ton metallic projectile rather than pass an exam. A recent survey has suggested that fewer and fewer drivers know the meaning of various road signs shown them, and various rules in the HIghway Code. Is it any wonder then that there are more accedents on our roads?

My point is that I don't think exams are doing now what their intention was a decade or 2 ago. I consider myself to be fortunate in that when I was at school I was taught how to learn, which then made teaching easier for the teachers and the exams checked how we could use this new information. There always seems to be something useful from the pass. There is the old adage of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Beware of the improvement for the sake of improvement.

(First published at James The Disciple Blog)

Intro

This will be the area where I post my thoughts and ideas on what is happening in the world