byronomo

byronomo 2 years, 3 months ago on Teacher resigns following homework controversy

Basically this teacher exercised poor judgement. We all have to live with our decisions, right or wrong. Had the teacher shown the requisite thought and consideration in designing her quiz, she should've been able to easily rationalize to taxpayers why this non-standard way of teaching math was more beneficial to our children.
My problem with this instructor's approach is not because it touches a racially-sensitive topic. The history of our country is important (good points and bad) and is very important for our kids to lear. That being said, I think it would've been equally poor judgement (in a math quiz) to use examples about native-american slaughters, napalm, internment camps and other distasteful aspects of history that are important for children to learn---in the right context.
Think of it this way---on one hand, if the teacher thought that it was extremely important for children to learn about slavery and she truly understood the horrific nature of this practice, it was poor judgement to mention it with this intention in such a nonchalant manner. On the other hand if she believed that slavery was such a minimally important topic such that she could easily "sprinkle" into math problems--then she should've been fired for ignorance.

0

byronomo 2 years, 3 months ago on Ga. proposes new fees to ride bikes at state parks

This idea is brilliant! Charge the 2% of Americans who can be bothered to exercise. I hope the state can do a better job of budgeting the marginal $376 this brings in.

0

byronomo 2 years, 3 months ago on Police: 4 arrests made in mad dash for Air Jordans at DeKalb mall

The "99%" are constantly being oppressed. It's unbelievable that evil corporations like Nike can continuously get away with forcing hard-working people to not only pay $180 for sneakers, but to purposely make so few of them that these poor hard-working souls are driven to violence and child neglect!

0

byronomo 2 years, 6 months ago on Tolls for HOT lanes lowered after Deal speaks out

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think that the HOT lanes should address 3 problems: 1)Traffic Congestion 2)Pollution 3)Revenues

The new HOT lanes fail on all 3 counts: 1)Traffic is equally (or more) congested in the general purpose lanes, while the HOT lanes are under-utilized. I don't consider 3000 vehicles (using HOT) out of 250,000 (using I-85) to be real relief to the congestion issue. 2)The old HOV lanes encouraged car-pools of 2 or more people, which cuts down on pollution. Given the way that Atlanta is laid-out (a very large area), the odds of being able to find 2 car pool partners who live and work reasonably close to one another are probably pretty low in any case. In the new system, this is upped to 3 people, making the odds even worse. Not to mention, that if you have 3 people who don't live/work on the same exits (meaning one or more has to get out "early" leaving the remaining 2 subject to the toll), then the advantage of the HOT diminishes greatly. At some point, it becomes too cumbersome and people will revert to driving themselves rather than subjecting themselves to the inconvenience (and expense, now) of carpooling.

3)If the goal is to raise additional revenues (for whatever purpose)---without getting into whether or not the revenues SHOULD be raised---the HOT doesn't really accomplish that. If the utilization is as low as it's been this week (3000 cars X the average toll), I'm guessing that the revenues don't really move the needle even if this doubles.

Lastly, the GDOT has been heralding the "time saved" by the drivers who opted to use the HOT lane this week. They are painting themselves into a dangerous corner because if, somehow, the usage of those lanes increase, the speeds in those lanes will necessarily decrease while the toll rate for those lanes will increase. While paying $.90 to save 30 minutes may be deemed a "good deal" for a precious few now---what if that becomes $9.00 for 5 minutes?

0

byronomo 2 years, 6 months ago on byronomo

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think that the HOT lanes should address 3 problems: 1)Traffic Congestion 2)Pollution 3)Revenues

The new HOT lanes fail on all 3 counts: 1)Traffic is equally (or more) congested in the general purpose lanes, while the HOT lanes are under-utilized. I don't consider 3000 vehicles (using HOT) out of 250,000 (using I-85) to be real relief to the congestion issue. 2)The old HOV lanes encouraged car-pools of 2 or more people, which cuts down on pollution. Given the way that Atlanta is laid-out (a very large area), the odds of being able to find 2 car pool partners who live and work reasonably close to one another are probably pretty low in any case. In the new system, this is upped to 3 people, making the odds even worse. Not to mention, that if you have 3 people who don't live/work on the same exits (meaning one or more has to get out "early" leaving the remaining 2 subject to the toll), then the advantage of the HOT diminishes greatly. At some point, it becomes too cumbersome and people will revert to driving themselves rather than subjecting themselves to the inconvenience (and expense, now) of carpooling.

3)If the goal is to raise additional revenues (for whatever purpose)---without getting into whether or not the revenues SHOULD be raised---the HOT doesn't really accomplish that. If the utilization is as low as it's been this week (3000 cars X the average toll), I'm guessing that the revenues don't really move the needle even if this doubles.

Lastly, the GDOT has been heralding the "time saved" by the drivers who opted to use the HOT lane this week. They are painting themselves into a dangerous corner because if, somehow, the usage of those lanes increase, the speeds in those lanes will necessarily decrease while the toll rate for those lanes will increase. While paying $.90 to save 30 minutes may be deemed a "good deal" for a precious few now---what if that becomes $9.00 for 5 minutes?

0