U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment

l4m3z0r writes "This rather alarming article discusses a study of high-school students in which they were asked about censorship, protected speech, and other aspects of the first amendment. The results are extremely worrisome: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." and this "Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.".."

Comments

Accuracy

[fembots]

Are all/most surveyed students born and brought up in America?

And does the First Amendment still feel the same after newly introduced Bills like PATRIOT ACT?

For instance, some countries have this Internal Security Act which allows government to imprison anyone for a couple of years without trial, and with that shadowing above your head, does it still matter if you're protected by another ancient right?

It's like a F1 driver still feels safe driving on slicks after it starts raining.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The government wants people to give up their rights, either voluntarily or through attrition. "Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's. Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.

Re:Accuracy

[damian cosmas]

That's great and all, but how does it relate to the first amendment?

Re:Accuracy

[IANAAC]

Are all/most surveyed students born and brought up in America?

That was my first thought when I read the summary too, particularly after having lived in another country for a few years. A lot of things we take for granted are quite illegal in other countries (Latin America was where I lived).

I also agree with you on the PATRIOT ACT.

Re:Accuracy

[slavemowgli]

Some countries... like the USA, one might add. Yeah, there's not a specific *law* there that allows that, but hey, all you need to do is be ruthless enough to do it, offer a story based on FUD and lies to the general public why you have to do it and why it is for their security, and hardly anybody will complain.

Re:Accuracy

[JPriest]

Any study that pulls a "random" cross section of the American population is usually equally as shocking. Few Americans could even tell you that it takes the earth 365.25 days to revolve around the sun, many don't know what makes the moon light up. Only like 25% op them can find Iraq on a globe. I am willing to bet that a greater percentage could tell you Britney Spears' middle name or name the entire cast of Sex In The City.

You wonder why Americans are so fat, when most of them think carbs are something are bad for you, when hardly any of them can explain what "callories from fat" means.

Meanwhile, insurance rates in this countly are through the roof for buisness getting sued into the ground becasue someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense.[/rant]

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's.

Communisim was a real threat in the cold war period. "We will bury you." was not a joke.

Some people say that communism fell when the soviet economy was unable to keep pace with the Reagan military buildup. Others say that communism fell because no one wanted to wear Bulgarian shoes :)

Re:Accuracy

[BigDogCH]

Excellent Rant!

My turn
br> I left teaching after only a few years My low point happened when I saw a student cheating on a test. I came up to her and told her she knew my cheating policy, and then proceded to toss her test in the trash. She then pleaded to me that she was only looking at the other peoples answers, not cheating. I thought this was a fluke, but then a week later, again. Another student, same excuse, "I was just copying".

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

> Others say that communism fell because no one wanted to wear Bulgarian shoes :)

With money I got from free market economy, I bought sneakers. These are from Slovakia. They are called "Adidums." They are like "Adidas," but with four stripes instead of three. So for less money, I get extra stripe! It's very good deal.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Few Americans could even tell you that it takes the earth 365.25 days to revolve around the sun

Actually, Mr Know-it-all it's closer to 365.242.

Re:Accuracy

[Dashing Leech]

"The government wants people to give up their rights, either voluntarily or through attrition."

Absolutely. Propaganda works wonders. After all, how else do you explain that half of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 9/11. It certainly doesn't suprise me that students don't understand what the government can and can't do when they don't learn it in schools and the media doesn't cover it because it isn't sex, violence, or an entertaining show.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised with these numbers. Remember the intelligence curve is normally distributed about 100 IQ. The 25% that are idiotic are balanced with 25% who are pretty darned smart.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Good deal, but don't the shoes wear you?

Re:Accuracy

[Leo McGarry]

And does the First Amendment still feel the same after newly introduced Bills like PATRIOT ACT?

Um. Yes, it does. Because USA PATRIOT had nothing to do with the first amendment, you see. Completely unrelated to that particular piece of law.

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

I think the collapse of Communism was a good deal more complex than the claims that Reagan outspent the Soviets. The system hadn't really worked all that well for decades. The Soviet economy had been having problems particularly during the uninspired leadership of Brezhnev. Gorbachev tried to buy time to ease the USSR into a market economy (it must be noted that the Chinese are successfully doing this), but the USSR's internal cohesion, which had not been so great and all-encompassing as the Soviets had let on, was fragmenting. There was economic, social and political rot everywhere.

Re:Accuracy

[dosius]

If they can convince the kids that such rights don't exist, then when the kids are grown up they can make the rights disappear without them noticing or caring.

Pity.

Moll.

Re:Accuracy

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Actually Earth takes closer to 365.2425 days to orbit the Sun, that is from using the full leap year formula.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Are all/most surveyed students born and brought up in America?

Oh, please!
Freedom of speech isn't restricted to the US of A.
As if all other nations are democtaric illiterates. Come on, man..

Re:Accuracy

[SoTuA]

But there's a difference between "being smart" and "knowing things". What OP complains about, I'd call it "lack of culture/basic knowledge" before calling it "lack of intelligence".

A person with such lack of culture might not know why touching the stove burned them. An idiot would touch it again.

Of course, being non-intelligent usually goes hand in hand with lack of basic knowledge.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.

uh. hate to point it out, but, we already do. companies already have more influence in government than the public does.

Re:Accuracy

[TheLittleJetson]

Communisim was a real threat in the cold war period. "We will bury you." was not a joke.

Terrorism is a real threat now. I think the poster was likening the two, because they're both exaggerated for political purposes. The neo-conservative philosophy revolves around the idea of a nation striving against some sort of 'evil' entity. This can be real or fake, but it works best when it's a little of both. Once people have seen a terrorist attack, it doesn't take much to convince them that there's some worldwide organization that was behind it.

Re:Accuracy

[Obfuscant]

...when hardly any of them can explain what "callories from fat" means.

I'm not sure I know what "callories" are, either.

When food "calories" (actually kilocalories) are determined, they use one of two methods. The first involves taking a chunk of whatever it is, putting it in a "bomb calorimeter", and burning it. The bomb calorimeter is a sealed container that is pressurized with oxygen and contains a small fuse to light the chunk of stuff on fire. The rise in temperature is measured; the number of calories released by the chunk is divided by 1000 and reported as the food's "calories". The second method is to simply calculate how much of what things are in some food item and add up the calorie contents for those items as they were determined by the bomb.

In the bomb, everything goes to CO2 and water (and some nitrogen and sulpher and etc. oxides.) In your body, the reactions are not so drastic, and follow different pathways depending on what kind of food is being processed. Not all foods end up as CO2 and water. That's why pretending that all "calories" are the same is erronious.

Further, "fat" doesn't go straight from fat in food to fat in body cells. It takes a roundabout path, and if that pathway is blocked or doesn't operate, then the fat doesn't get stored.

And that, dear fellow Slashdotter, is the basis for Atkins. It works. I've done it.

Re:Accuracy

[dr_dank]

"Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's.

Not quite. Communism was this vaguely threatening bogeyman who could lob nuclear missles at your country and burn down your churches if given the chance but never came to pass. Terrorism is at least tangible in the form of 9/11, embassy bombings, etc where the effects are very real.

Re:Accuracy

[superpulpsicle]

U.S highschools needs to spend some real money in edumacation. Universities are no better. There is a massive financial emphasis on sports.

While I am a sports fan myself, there is a danger to putting so much emphasis on something give you 1% employment chance. Few people actually play professional sports for a living. That's like pumping in millions into a class that gets you no where. Japanese teachers are paid 2-3x more than American counterparts.

Re:Accuracy

[servognome]

I think you're overestimating most people.
Few Americans could even tell you that it takes the earth 365.25 days to revolve around the sun, many don't know what makes the moon light up.
I bet less than half could even tell you 365. Ask them why there are 30 days in a month, or 365 days in a year, and they'll just say "because thats the way the calendar was made".
Only like 25% op them can find Iraq on a globe
Probably less than that, though the numbers may have gone up after the war started.
You wonder why Americans are so fat, when most of them think carbs are something are bad for you, when hardly any of them can explain what "callories from fat" means.
Most probably don't even know carb is short for carbohydrate.

Re:Accuracy

[wfberg]

>Few Americans could even tell you that it takes the earth 365.25 days to revolve around the sun

Actually, Mr Know-it-all it's closer to 365.242.

Or, rather, 365.2524 (and a few leap seconds every once in a while).

Re:Accuracy

[DarkTempes]

another bit on accuracy: when you fill out these little paper surveys in high school, how many people just put crap as an answer or how many people typically put what they think is the silliest answer? i'd say only 5 to 10% of high school students ever take such surveys serious unless the university doing the study actually phone or personally interviewed more than 100,000 students...which i doubt somewhere some company probably thinks at my high school, everyone got laid 5+ times a day and did every single drug known to man =)

Re:Accuracy

[Squareball]

Hello! That is because they are educated BY the government in government schools!

Send your children to Catholic school and they will learn that the church is the answer to all life's problems and that when in need you can always turn to the church. Send you children to government school and they learn that the government is always right and can do no wrong even when doing wrong.

The government has an agenda and why we give our children over to them to be "taught" is beyond me. They don't need the media for their propaganda, they have the schools.. and this is further proof. They are trying to ban even the constitution and delceration of independance in some school systems because it might "offend" some one. Most students these days can't even tell you what the difference between state government and federal government is and most people in this country can't even name their congressman or tell you who they represent (you) and who the senators represent(the state)

Get rid of government schools and the teacher's union and we might see an educated America!

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Few Americans could even tell you that it takes the earth 365.25 days to revolve around the sun"

It's actually closer to 365.24 days.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, insurance rates in this countly are through the roof for buisness getting sued into the ground becasue someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense.[/rant]

Yea, I know what you mean. Slinky's have been around for a long time and have always (well, for at least as long as I can remember) carried the warning that it was a choking hazard. http://www.poof-slinky.com/catalog/slinkytoys/cata log.asp?action=catv&catid=33

Although I recently saw that there is another warning now printed on most slinky boxes -- "Not for use in a moving vehicle" Any one know which law suit brought this new warning?

Re:Accuracy

[cg0def]

Of course the students are americans. Do you actually thing that anybody would be stupid enough to pay for a study with flawed data?
This is really scary though. People who don't know their right will eventually lose them and this is exactly what started happening with the patriot act. Yeah natinal security is important but how much are you willing to give up for a false notion of security?

Re:Accuracy

[sploo22]

I believe that in the Gregorian calendar, the approximation used is 365.2425; the actual value is 365.2422.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Only like 25% op them can find Iraq on a globe.

Reminds me of an old (pre-war) joke:

"The good news is, only 2% of Americans even know where Iraq is on a map.
The bad news is, they're all Marines."

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

alex jones is a screwball nutcase getting paid by the U.S. Government.

Re:Accuracy

[JohnFluxx]

Oh come on, what effects? I have never seen evidence of terrorism being the slightest bit of threat to the UK or America. Sure it kills a few people, but so do cars. It doesn't threaten the country/state at all.

Re:Accuracy

[blincoln]

Communism was this vaguely threatening bogeyman who could lob nuclear missles at your country and burn down your churches if given the chance but never came to pass. Terrorism is at least tangible in the form of 9/11, embassy bombings, etc where the effects are very real.

How are a few isolated incidents like September 11th more real than the Soviet Union swallowing up Eastern Europe at the end of WWII?

Communism certainly became a bogeyman, just like terrorism has, but Russia *did* do some pretty nasty things during and after WWII.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet less than half could even tell you 365

I would settle for "a year", but I hear answers all the time to the tune of "hmm, I don't know, a month??"

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the 365.242 number is a bit closer.
If we go for a 400 year block
By a calendar:
Base Day Count: 365*400
Leap years in Centuries not divide by 100: 3*24
Leap in Century that is: 25
Gives us (365*400+(24*3+25)): 146097 days

400 years * 365.2524 days/year = 146100.96 days
400 years * 365.242 days/year = 146096.8 days

Re:Accuracy

[JohnFluxx]

Have you seen the BBC program "Power of Nightmares"? I watched it and downloaded the bittorrent of it. I think kuro5hin mentioned it.
But anyway, it mentions what you talk about it.

Re:Accuracy

[cgranade]

The best propaganda is that which people do not believe is propaganda. If it is accepted in schools as "cirriculum," then it can't be propaganda, can it? Furthermore, propaganda can take the form of silence on a specific issue, or acting upon an implicit assumption. Very rarely did Americans hear "the hijackers were from Iraq," which is blatantly false, but rather they heard "Iraq had a part in 9/11," and saw us act as if the hijackers were from Iraq. These implicit assumptions are perhaps the strongest and most insidious of the forms which American propaganda takes today.

Re:Accuracy

[Llama_STi]

After a few good points you have to go and completely discredit yourself with the same old, tired falsehoods.

Read up so you don't make the same foolish mistake again. :P
I bet you thought that last McDonalds point was the clincher, didn't you? Don't quote what you don't know.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

How's your ketosis?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the blissful ignorance among computer programmers and other supposedly educated people. They think that their understanding of one field somehow flows over into everything else. It's actually rather amusing to watch. You mention corporate rule, but if you were paying attention, you would know how completely obsurd that is. Not that I mind. I find you idiots funny.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And Janet Reno isn't a man. /sarcasm

Re:Accuracy

[michaelkpate]

Maybe they believe it because he was.

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. - Saddam link to Bin Laden

Oh, and check out what Janet Reno has to say about the threat of WMD.

Re:Accuracy

[BigDogCH]

I think i am the only U.S. teacher on the planet who thinks the U.S. teachers get paid plenty. Most of my teacher friends are making 40-50K per year, and have a million dollar retirement pension coming. $50k per year for 20 years = 1 million, though they may live for 30 years thus 1.5 million.

Anyway, I think teachers get paid enough. The reason we have so many crappy teachers is that the crappy ones are not removed. Everyoen knows who the crappy teachers are in each school, but the administration hires the teacher that makes their life the easiest (also coaches, probably will be quiet and not complain). Instead, the administrators need to have some sort of reason to hire good teachers. I am probably the only teacher in favor of testing each and every year. I don't care if the teachers "teach to the test". If the test is written correctly, teaching to the test is exactly what should happen.

Fire the teachers whose students don't learn anything over the course of 1 year. In order to do this, you have to test each and every student each year. FIRE THEM ALL if you have to.

Sorry about that, I am no longer teaching. The system just disgusted me.

Re:Accuracy

[paganizer]

Perhaps you can expand upon that? I thought it was accepted /. mantra that the patriot act has a chilling effect on free speech.
but hey, if we're wrong...

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind the fact that they also draw a paycheck from said corporation. I've never understood where the liberal fear and hatred of corporations came from. Do they really think that we're all better off as subsistence farmers like our ancestors were? They love to bitch and moan about corporations, but by-God their Ford Focus gets 40 miles per gallon of Exxon gasoline.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insightful? Absurd! Who moderated this?

Please, learn to read. This is nothing but flamebait. It consists only of baseless insults to an entire nation of people.

Sir, are you implying that The United States is a country of stupid people because a large sampling of people can't quote a useless fact that you pull out of a hat? Is an American dumb because he can't point to whatever country you care to name on an unlabeled map? Or is he dumb because he happens to know the middle name of a celebrity he enjoys?

And then you call everybody fat! An exceedingly profound point, I'm sure. Well, I'm not fat, and I'm becoming increasingly irritated with mindless, (and uncalled for) America bashing.

I hope you feel properly superior to all us backwoods Americans now. Moderators, please filter this stuff out for us, so we can try to have a worthwhile conversation about the important values of freedom this article discusses instead of throwing around "you're fat" jokes. Thanks.

Re:Accuracy

[Leo McGarry]

I thought it was accepted /. mantra that the patriot act has a chilling effect on free speech.

Oh, it very much is. It's an article of faith in numerous echo chambers. It is not, however, true in any way at all. As is patently obvious to anybody who's ever, you know, read the damn thing.

Re:Accuracy

[Foolhardy]

According to the unit coversion in my HP48, one year has 365.242198781 days. Google agrees with that, albeit with less precision. So there :)

Re:Accuracy

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Communisim was a real threat in the cold war period. "We will bury you." was not a joke.

Sure it was. It referred to the USSR's supposed industrial might - Kruchev was threatening to bury us in Soviet manufactured goods.

Re:Accuracy

[Bob C. Cock]

I used to play cello in Soviet orchestra, now I sell froggie pops, I love free market economy.

God I loved the State!

Re:Accuracy

[ahdeoz]

The article, and obviously the study, are really just propoganda to 1) justify media such as CNN that want to push their agenda that "dissent (i.e., anit-Americanism) is patriotic" and 2) that Americans really are dumb for re-electing Bush. What it does, in fact, expose, is the incompetence and bias of school teachers.

Re:Accuracy

[Nefarious Wheel]

Do you actually thing that anybody would be stupid enough to pay for a study with flawed data?

You're joking, right? It's called "cooking the stats" and it's done regularly by marketing firms. Greater than 95% of all terrorists are regular users of orange juice. Read "How to Lie with Statistics" (Stanley Erickson) if you can find a copy.

Re:Accuracy

[TrancePhreak]

If you think warning labels here are bad (and by bad I mean in large number), then whatever you do, don't move to Japan.

Re:Accuracy

[I_Love_Pocky!]

The difference is that terrorism is hardly a significant threat. Terrorists have neither the ability nor the desire to destroy all life on this planet (as a full blown nuclear war would have). The Bush administration would like to make the case that terrorism is the gravest threat the US has ever faced, but it simply isn't. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than give up my freedoms.

Why are Republicans so willing to sacrifice everything that is great about this country for the illusion of security? The war on terror is a joke, and so is Mr. Bush.

Re:Accuracy

[Waffle Iron]

Communism was this vaguely threatening bogeyman who could lob nuclear missles at your country and burn down your churches if given the chance but never came to pass. Terrorism is at least tangible in the form of 9/11, embassy bombings, etc where the effects are very real.

Any particular citizen's odds of being killed in a 9/11-style attack are around 10,000:1. That's similar to the odds of being struck by lightning and about 100 times less likely than being killed in an auto accident; not worth worrying about.

What people are really worried about is terrorists with WMDs. That's exactly the "vaguely threatening bogeyman" that has everyone whipped up into a frenzy, and it's almost identical to the Cold War threat of communist states with WMDs.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Any study that pulls a "random" cross section of the American population is usually equally as shocking.

Yeah, or at least any study that we hear about. The ones that aren't shocking don't get much media attention.

Only like 25% op them can find Iraq on a globe.

I'd love to see the methodology behind that survey. Or even a reference to what survey you're talking about.

I am willing to bet that a greater percentage could tell you Britney Spears' middle name or name the entire cast of Sex In The City.

I'll take that bet.

...hardly any of them can explain what "callories from fat" means.

And even more shockingly, many can't even spell the word "calories".

Meanwhile, insurance rates in this countly are through the roof for buisness getting sued into the ground becasue someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense.

Really now, I think you've bought in to the media hype about all of this crap. Truly frivolous lawsuits usually don't go very far. Of course, there are exceptions, and those exceptions are the ones that the media blow out of proportion.

In reality, if so many people are so stupid, who would be left to be shocked by the results of those surveys? If so many people are so stupid, what makes you think that the people who design and report the surveys are some of those who are not stupid? And as far as products go, most people use most products successfully every day without getting hurt or suing. It only takes one stupid person to get hurt and sue before it's a nuisance for the company making the product. It only takes another stupid person inside the company to decide to put a stupid label on it.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Just something to think about...

Re:Accuracy

[ex-geek]

You wonder why Americans are so fat, when most of them think carbs are something are bad for you, when hardly any of them can explain what "callories from fat" means.

Well I think that 'not knowing simple and objective facts' is an entirely different category from 'buying into the craze around the newest diet scheme'. The latter is a more general problem, which is also related to superstition, pseudo-science, and so on

Re:Accuracy

[eliktronik]

It's like a F1 driver still feels safe driving on slicks after it starts raining.

Best.. analogy.... EVER!

Re:Accuracy

[FLEB]

You make a very good point. If I had points, you would have points.

Re:Accuracy

[learn fast]

Meanwhile, insurance rates in this countly are through the roof for buisness getting sued into the ground becasue someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense

that's because the insurance company is legally liable for what its insurees do, no matter how stupid. (The whole point of insurance.) Wouldn't it be nice the the government was liable for the ignorance of its people?

Re:Accuracy

[Jheaden]

You mean we don't already?

Big business has more control over what happens in the United States then the populace does.

I can't say it is all underhanded, but it sure seems that way to me.

Re:Accuracy

[I_Love_Pocky!]

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons

Except that even the Bush administration now admits that Saddam had no such weapons. Nice try.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess paying for slashdot doesn't make you any smarter.

Re:Accuracy

[Raunch]

And does the First Amendment still feel the same after newly introduced Bills like PATRIOT ACT?

I would say that the recent election sends a very clear message "Unless it's about guns, amendments are just obstacles to be ignored at will by the sitting president"

Re:Accuracy

[kogus]

I think you're missing the point... the reason the first amendment was written is to avoid living in a *government* controlled country. Corporations do bad things sometimes, but what they can do is small compared to the brute force of government.

Re:Accuracy

[SteveSgt]

Let's try to inject some accuracy into your comments...

The government has an agenda and why we give our children over to them to be "taught" is beyond me.

Certainly many elected officials, and their appointees, have hidden agendas. Their public agenda is, presumably, why people voted for them. But to dismiss public schools because of this belies a deep misunderstanding of the advantages of a public school system. A public school system is, by necessity, open to scrutiny by the entire community. Private schools are not.

They don't need the media for their propaganda, they have the schools.. and this is further proof. They are trying to ban even the constitution and delceration of independance in some school systems because it might "offend" some one.

The only case I've read about this is about a techer who was using the consitution in a Cupertino, CA public school to argue that the "Founding Fathers" intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation. Some conservative press misrepresented this as a case of "banning the constitution" in the school.

Most students these days can't even tell you what the difference between state government and federal government is and most people in this country can't even name their congressman or tell you who they represent (you) and who the senators represent(the state)

I attribute the decline in the U.S. primary education system to the following ills:

1. Significantly reduced funding with respect to inflation, leading to mediocrity in staffing and inadequate facilities. The tax cutting regime that started with Ronald Reagan in California has starved the schools of adequate funds to operate.
2. Parents take less interest in their own education, as jobs become more demaning. Relatively wealthy parents work long hours at "exempt" jobs, unable to assist their kids with homework. The kids are raised by TV instead.
3. Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

Re:Accuracy

[CrayzyJ]

It is highly likely in one form or another that Iraq was involved. there is much more to it than flying the planes: weapons, money, whatever, and even moral support all count as "involvement".

Re:Accuracy

[KillerDeathRobot]

Joke... or just woefully ignorant?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the parent poster (JPriest), I am American.

Re:Accuracy

[PMuse]

Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.

Dusty: Jesus, it's coming. Jo, Bill, it's coming! It's headed right for us!
Bill: It's already here!

--Twister (1996)

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but for most of us who won't live through 2100's missing leap day 365.25 is fine for daily use :-)

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of leftist FUD. If you truly understood a free market economy, you might say something more intelligent. Consumers vote with their pocketbooks. If the market doesn't want a "corporate controlled country", then it won't develop. Besides, government regulation is always there as a last resort to control the market. Yes, people should know and understand their right to free speech. Yes, they should exercise it when necessary. NO, they shouldn't just say whatever the hell they want because they can. Use your rights responsibly. I just get so upset when people trash talk the business world just because it "sounds good". *sigh*

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

or even get rid of government altogether!
wow, what a neat idea!

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you have observed the destruction of society of work. It's all downhill from here...

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Good god, man! Saddam's government officials have a meeting with OBL's representatives and suddenly he's behind 9/11? Did you know Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam (famous handshake photo) on quite cordial terms back when we were selling him weapons? Is Rumsfeld behind 9/11 now?

No, having a meeting doesn't indicate an alliance. It doesn't even indicate lack of contempt. In fact, it means nothing. Step back, take a breath, and realize that Al Qaeda was a THREAT to Saddam's government (after all, OBL promised to wage war against Saddam after the Kuwait invasion, remember?). It was a meeting of ENEMIES. And all indications are that nothing came out of the meeting except panicked neocons running around Langley.

Meanwhile, we're still committing HUGE amounts of resources to "pre-emptively defending ourselves against Iraq" when we could be fighting terrorism or doing ANYTHING ELSE productive.

Wow, Janet Reno was wrong about WMDs. Just like Bush. And you.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Those Russians doing nasty things during WWII allowed us all to keep our hands clean in comparison. Without those Russians, someone else would have had to do it, or the war would have been lost.

And though it does not absolve them from the atrocities commited during and after, but they did what was nessecary to win that war, and without them, most of Europe would be speaking German.

Re:Accuracy

[Ironsides]

Actually, the McDonalds one was partially true. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A429950

As for other frivoulus lawsuits? My grandmother was called for jury duty because a guy decided to use his lawnmower as a hedgetrimmer. And lost some toes. The idiot was also wearing sandals at the time to boot. And Mayor Rugy Giuliany got called in for jury duty as well. I'll leave you to find out why, but it was thrown out of court.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you were paying attention in 2nd grade, you would know how to spell "absurd". I find you idiots who can't spell funny.

Re:Accuracy

[Nefarious Wheel]

Read "How to Lie with Statistics" (Stanley Erickson) if you can find a copy

My bad ... author is Huff, Darrell, and Geis, Irving (1993) ISBN: (0-393-31072-8)

Re:Accuracy

[paganizer]

I don't agree with you.
The US Supreme Court has determined that the freedom to read is strongly associated with freedom of speech; the patriot act has a chilling effect on the freedom to read by state enquiry into reading, for such an enquiry immediately suggests that some topics are off limits.

As a ISP, there is one aspect that is of particular concern, the enforcement of silence about investigations, which is a dangerous loss of executive accountability and itself an infringement on free speech; granted, a gag order could be issued by a judge in the past with much the same results, but a gag order was hard to get by law enforcement in the past because it was a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If Dan Rather says its true, doesn't that make it so??

Re:Accuracy

[Diomedes Tydeus]

Of course you're right! That's why D&D has and Int score AND a Wisdom score ;)

-Diomedes

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, quit blowing smoke about nuclear war destroying all life. This is a myth. Sure, all humans might have died, but what the hell.

Terrorism is significant. These radicals want to see the forced death or conversion of all non-muslims. They have gained a foothold in governments and schools in the middle east and elsewhere. They are projecting this philosophy over a fairly large population. I personally don't want to become a muslim, so I am glad we are fighting these radicals. The only way to beat them is kill them. We cannot reason with them. If you think you can, go ask for a meeting and get your throat cut.

I do agree with you that I would rather die in a terrorist attack than lose my freedoms. But I do think we need to fight these guys on their turf and not ours. The war on terror is real and necessary, but I agree that we shouldn't give up our freedoms while fighting it.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't a troll. Some liberals are trying to do exactly this, because the said documents mention God.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like the part where you can't tell a surveillance target that they're under surveillance, or you can go to jail. Certainly not a 1st amendment violation, no sirree. Just gotta get those baaad terrorists.

Re:Accuracy

[KarmaMB84]

You realize that a congressma is anyone from either the House or the Senate, right? You also realize that the Senate is elected by popular vote statewide and the Representatives are elected by popular vote in districts. So Reps are just subdivided further than Senators, but they are still accountable to people and not the state government (who used to hold the leash).

Re:Accuracy

[SuperBigGulp]

The Soviet economy had been having problems particularly during the uninspired leadership of Brezhnev.

But isn't that about the same time they were having record wheat harvests?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called fascism. Study history to understand why fascism isn't popular around Liberals.

According to Mussolini (start with him, then Hitler) fascism isn't much more than the marriage of business and government.

That's why people who understand the world a little better than you two complain about overreaching corporate power. We've been there before and it sucked.

Re:Accuracy

[Leo McGarry]

the patriot act has a chilling effect on the freedom to read by state enquiry into reading

That's not a correct statement. If there were a "chilling effect" --there clearly has not been; library patronage remains unchanged --it would have been attributable to the wild misrepresentation of what USA PATRIOT actually was and what it actually did than by anything that was actually in the law itself.

And gag orders are most certainly not violations of the First Amendment. They're a situation in which the freedom to speak has to be balanced against the public safety, or against the right of the accused to receive a fair trial. They're not even slightly controversial.

You want to put an end to "chilling effects?" Stop running around claiming that they sky is falling. It isn't, and if you're doing anything at all, you'd doing more harm than good.

Re:Accuracy

[acidrain69]

Where did the teacher's union come into all this? You talk about freedom of speech and expression, but you are anti-union? Why?

Re:Accuracy

[TheGeneration]

Did you know there's never been a communist economy in a democratic political system? Every communist state has been run by a dictatorship or some form. All dicatorships fail when the dictator makes a wrong move and his enemies take advantage of the error.

I often wonder whether or not a country with a communist economy would survive better if it were lead be a democratically elected body.

Re:Accuracy

[curtwaugh]

I agree that government schools are not the answer to all of life's mysteries. But... How is this article rated 3 for interesting? 1) You offer no clear alternative. Instead, you just spout off about 95% of the schools in America. Why? What are you trying to achieve? 2) You write rather poorly. Where were you educated? And why weren't you paying attention in writing class? 3) Did you forget that this (and just about every country where the standard of living is quite high) have had public school for a very long time (over 80 years since all states in the USA mandated at least elementary education)? We didn't get that way for no reason.

Re:Accuracy

[nine-times]

They don't need the media for their propaganda, they have the schools.

That it's propaganda doesn't bother me so much. The fact is, 90% of the people are going to buy-in and live their lives according to propaganda, it's just a question of *whose* propaganda. As you said, raise them in a Catholic school, and they'll be taught that Catholicism has the answers, raise them in a government school and they learn the government's answers, raise them in a [insert-name-here] school and they'll grow up to believe whatever [insert-name-here] believes.

And those who are capable to seeing through propaganda? They'll see through it, whoever is selling it.

So, to me it's not an issue of eliminating propaganda in education, it's an issue of making sure the propaganda is productive. You want the messages that you're flooding into the schools to prepare kids for the vicious outside world. You want the propaganda to be of the kind that makes them good citizens rather than bad. You want the education to lead them to better lives rather than worse.

They are trying to ban even the constitution and delceration of independance in some school systems because it might "offend" some one.

And here you're hitting on what's closer to being the "real problem". The propaganda being pushed in schools is that kids don't need to be good citizens. They're being taught that the values that have made this country strong are a load of BS. They're preaching a sense of entitlement, that working for a living is base, and that nothing means anything. Even though they're all taught that they're "great kids", they're also taught that they're useless. It's chaos.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

So what the fuck did Saddam use on the kurds and the Iranians? I supposed his just spread some magic fairy dust on them. Just cause they weren't found doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Send you children to government school and they learn that the government is always right and can do no wrong even when doing wrong.

The article states that the teachers are on the other side

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes

Re:Accuracy

[blueice02]

Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

Explain to me again how math and science education relates to civics education? The bottom line is that Americans have become apathetic and completely dispassionate about education period. Parents for the most part don't care enough to really take part in their children's education or to even ask them what they are learning. As a teacher I see this apathy in both parent and student alike on a daily basis and nothing is more frustrating than to know that if a parent really worked with their child that their child could be much more successful in the classroom and in their learning.

The results of this survey don't surprise me one bit, but until we as a collective society start taking education seriously again and start demanding more of the parents as well as the students, it won't change either.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

An ignorant person is one that lacks knowledge. A stupid person is one that is ignorant yet thinks/speaks otherwise. Thus, people mentioned in the story that had an opinion that contradicts the facts are not just ignorant, they are *stupid*. Period.

Re:Accuracy

[I_Love_Pocky!]

These radicals want to see the forced death or conversion of all non-Muslims. They have gained a foothold in governments and schools in the middle east and elsewhere.

I more or less agree with you, but do you really think that inaction will lead to our destruction? These radicals you speak of could never rival the military or economic might of the Western world. Furthermore, "their turf" isn't their turf alone. There are plenty of innocents in the Middle East who do not deserve to live in a war zone.

I could see how this all might be justified if the radicals could be wiped out in this manner. The problem is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that our aggressive actions do more to fuel extremism than to destroy it. What is our end goal? The end of Islam?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as a Pole (remeber us?) I can confirm that the communist economy was rotting well before Reagan (from it's very begining actually) and it could have gone on rotting for many more decades. Of course the collapse of communism was more complex, but president Reagan is a signifcant contributor to it and has helped greatly sped up the process.

Re:Accuracy

[pilgrim23]

This trend is nothing new. Back in the 1950s, a brilliant Science Fiction writer named C.M. Kornbluth wrote some stories based on a world in which the majority have dumbed down to an average IQ of around 60. In his work the real business of running the world was held by a select few who were seen by the majority as janitors, hat check girls, bathroom attendants, plumbers. and the like.
One story he wrote using this backdrop became the plot of an original Twilight Zone. For those interested, it had the title: The Black Bag. It was about a doctor's bag (what a quaint notion;, as if a doctor would actually need a means of carrying instruments today, as if they would actually travel to see a patient); a doctor bag that was impossible to hurt anyone with, and was able to cure anything.
The best story in this series I would say, was one of the first. Look in anthologies for a tale called "The Marching Morons". Remember: written in the 1950s. and it is so so prescient..
--

Re:Accuracy

[Handbrewer]

Good for you, however, Atkins mainly work by emptying the carps stored in the muscles, which means you will se a high initial weight loss due to this, but it also means you will soon be exhausted.

Eating carbs is good, from the right sources. Carbs from sugar is bad, carbs from potatoes and rice is good. The key to weight loss is increase in muscle mass (weightlifting) and excercise, and not so much how much food you eat. If you eat enough fruit and vegetables you dont feel hungry all the time, which you will on a high fat, high suger diet (think McDonalds with a sugary coke = hungry in an hour!). Ive lost 20 pounds now by doing cardio and weightlifting, because they complement each other, by burning off alot of calories in the cardio directly, and by increase in musclemass means im burning more calories than i would with a lower bodymass. Besides during the rest period between workouts im on an 'afterburner' because my muscles need to rebuild from the excersice, that energy has to come from somewhere, and if i restrict my diet, it has to come from my bodyfat.

Which means i have a sustained weight loss! Even when i stop restricting my diet as much. The only thing that ever worked is excercise and consuming less energy than the body can burn! Call it what you want to call it, but its the same thing Atkins does, just unhealthier.

Re:Accuracy

[Sheepdot]

You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.

I'm sorry, I don't follow the logic. You're telling me that a homosexual senator in the 50s was respresenting corporate policy when he attacked Hollywood liberals and suspected members of the Communist party?

Because IMHO, this last sentence is the only one that seems off. Government != Corporations. I agree, there's a problem with corporate policy working its way into our government, but that is a result of government regulations and restrictions.

Corporations used to not give a crap about who was a senator or representative. At least, not till around the rise of the network broadcasters and anchormen of the 1970s. John Stossel, one of the best scandal uncoverers, now sees what the fruits of all their labor are: people get scared of getting ripped off and then the government steps in, regulates something that shouldn't be regulated, and the companies in that industry use the government to squash each other.

Who makes more profit on a pack of smokes?
1) Federal Government
2) State Government
3) Local Government
4) Big Tobacco

And you wonder why people like myself aren't dumbfounded that there is a "marriage" of corporation and state?

Re:Accuracy

[I_Love_Pocky!]

Ok, you win, the Bush administration has admitted that he doesn't seem to have had them after the '91 war (as Saddam maintained). The events you refer to predate his disarming.

Re:Accuracy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

even moral support all count as "involvement"

Yeah. Communism is the same way. If you support welfare or subsidized housing for the elderly then you are supporting the communist regime. The Reds are trying to kill every one of us, because they are jealous of, and hate our freedom. If your parents or spouse or friends support communism, then you are guilty of supporting the evil empire by not informing the house un-American activities committee. If you aren't one of us, then you are part of the cancer that is infecting our nation. Those damn, evil, godless commies are trying to kill us all. The Russians would love to stomp on the heads of every free American baby and squish their brains....what? Oh we're against the Muslims now? Sorry, I have not been keeping up. I'll start over.

If you support anti-globalism or free speech and rights for "suspected" terrorists then you are supporting the terrorist regime. The Muslim fanatics are trying to kill every one of us, because they are jealous of, and hate our freedom. If your parents or spouse or friends support Islam, then you are guilty of supporting the evil empire by not informing the republican party and department of Homeland Defense. If you aren't one of us, then you are part of the cancer that is infecting our nation. Those damn, evil, godless terrorists are trying to kill us all....

Re:Accuracy

[Pig Hogger]

Send your children to Catholic school and they will learn that the church is the answer to all life's problems and that when in need you can always turn to the church. Send you children to government school and they learn that the government is always right and can do no wrong even when doing wrong.

The corollary is: "send your children to private schools and they will learn that private companies are the answer to all life's problems and that when in need, you can always turn to private-entreprise, and that it can do no wrong.

Re:Accuracy

[Rangsk]

Do you really think universities have sports programs to give students career opportunities? What are you on? Because I want some too.

Seriously, sports at universities are fund raising to the extreme. Selling tickets, selling merchandise, selling advertising, etc. It's a huge moneymaker. That's why universities try to attract good athletes with full scholarships and easy classes.

Re:Accuracy

[fingers1122]

The political theorist Hannah Arendt predicted the fall of the Soviet Union long before it happened. It was inevitable and had very little to do with the Reagan administration. The only way people can achieve freedom is to act freely, and that's what the Soviets did. The social movement spread and society's power increased. It got to the point where so many people were assuming a freedom that they didn't have that the government couldn't squash all dissentience. The economic and social collapse of the Soviet Union came from the political action enacted by the people. The people achieved action through plurality, not isolationism. It's the reverse of this government's strong-man approach to foreign policy: Power and strength are gained not from idealistic isolationism, but from plural debate within the public polis.

Currently, the US government has been masterful in dividing words from the deeds they describe, and according to this study, it's paying off. When the government talks of spreading freedom and liberty and then begins censoring speech within its country, a very dangerous form of propaganda is created. It's sad that this conditioning seems to be infiltrating the US school system.

Re:Accuracy

[thrash242]

I'm glad someone sees the real threat instead of falling for the "terrorism is just a nuisance" and "they just want to be free like everybody else" crap.

Terrorism is just a tactic, but the *ideology* behind it, is a serious threat to all free people. You may think it's exaggerated, but they have stated straight up that they want to *convert or kill* all non-mohammedans. They want to take over and convert to Sharia law western countries including the US. This has come from supposedly mainstream Islamic groups like CAIR.

It's worse in some European countries, like in the Netherlands, with what happened to Theo Van Gogh, and in Sweden (IIRC), where in some cities, police have admitted that they no longer have control due to hordes of Islamic immigrants causing chaos. And the aformentioned apathy about the problem is what has allowed these things to happen.

Now, I'm certainly not advocating a police state or anything of the sort; I'm pretty libertarian. But some common sense things need to be done, like controlling the borders (which is a way in which I differ from hardline libertarianism) and keeping an eye on groups that could be connected with terrorism.

The threat is real; open your eyes.

Re:Accuracy

[LilGuy]

Then we turn around and blow the hell out of them and ingrain our "democratic" values in them. Its the same story, different spin.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't have any ketosis most likely, since Atkins diet still encourages the intake of many essential nutrients from vegetables. In fact in this regard its probably better than many traditional diets.

Atkins adds protiens to the diet which most diets remove. These protiens are essential to our bodies functioning, and many of them which we can't produce ourselves and must get from our foods.

What atkins does, essentially, is switch your body into getting calories from fats rather than carbohydrates. The amount of protien in the atkins diet is actually not significantly higher than many traditional diets in some world cultures.

Remember the traditional "hunter gatherer" diet which humans ate for a very long time consisted of meats, and berries and the like. It wasn't until we switched to an agricultural society, where we started this grains thing.

Re:Accuracy

[BorgCopyeditor]

dissent (i.e., anit-Americanism)

If you think dissent is equivalent to anti-Americanism, you don't deserve to call yourself an American. Please fuck off and die under the heel of some foreign dictator if you love fascism so much.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

Science I understand with the whole Creationism versus Evolution problem, but can you give an example of math education being weakened by religion? I don't see anyone demanding that Pi be taught as exactly 3.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

These radicals want to see the forced death or conversion of all non-muslims. They have gained a foothold in governments and schools in the middle east and elsewhere.

Yes, and some radicals in the US want to kill all non-whites and think that Hitler was a great guy. Just because an idiot believes something that would threaten my life if they had the capacity to carry out their vision, doesn't mean we should bomb the hell out of their entire country.

Or need I remind you that there are plenty of people in the Middle East who don't care what religion some American practices, who just want to live their lives? These people bear the brunt of our bombings, while scum like bin Laden just get a steady stream of new recruits.

Re:Accuracy

[rednever]

Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.

What do you mean, will be?

Re:Accuracy

[h4rm0ny]

I'm not saying that many people aren't picking up the belief from others rather than deducing it themselves; but I think that the foundation of it is that the PATRIOT act has provided a means by which the government in the USA can more easily harrass those saying / printing / broadcasting ideas it does not like. Of course the PATRIOT act doesn't say "The President can censor you," but it does provide scope for arresting, spying on and secrecy in obtaining and submitting evidence.

This means the government can't say "Don't print that," but it can now more easily punish such people with less dependence on legal niceties - hence the chilling effect.

Re:Accuracy

[b-baggins]

Which just proves that Saddam was playing a bluff, because he certainly made it look like he was stockpiling WMD post 1991. We called his bluff and now he's rotting in a prison cell. Cry me a river.

Re:Accuracy

[BorgCopyeditor]

Did you know there's never been a communist economy in a democratic political system?

Oh, I know. We (in the U.S. especially) have made sure of that. The message we've effectively sent is: vote in the communists, and we'll send in the death squads. Try reading up about Nicaragua, for one.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

What the hell are you talking about? How do you go from a few states not wanting evolution taught as undisputable fact to "Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools". You have just become part of the problem with this anti-religion propaganda!

You're supposed to be using your mouth to speak, not your ass. Take your idiotic anti-religion bias elsewhere. I hear Fark is still taking memberships.

Re:Accuracy

[Pig Hogger]

A lot of things we take for granted are quite illegal in other countries (Latin America was where I lived).

Things like???

Re:Accuracy

[mrogers]

How can you claim that it's "highly likely" without even knowing what kind of support was supposedly provided? You're not making an assessment of probability, you're just stating your beliefs. If you want to claim that something's objectively true, provide evidence. Otherwise be honest and say "I believe" rather than "it is highly likely".

...even moral support all count as "involvement".

The dictionary disagrees.

Re:Accuracy

[iocat]

Except F1 drivers don't drive on slicks. They drive on tires with grooves on them, to slow the cars down. In fact in the upcoming season, teams will need to qualify and race the entire race on the same set of tires. They can change to rain tires if it starts to rain, and they can swap in a practice tire if they get a flat, but none of the tires, even warm weather tires, are actually slicks.

NASCAR or CART/IndyCar might have been a better example, because those guys do race on slicks, but none of those guys race in the rain. So, in the end, Le Mans or sports car racing, where they can use slicks (and do race in the rain) would be the best example. There have been lots of situations at LeMans where it starts raing just past the pits and the drivers have to make the ~8 mile lap before they can pit for rain tires.

Re:Accuracy

[Cracell]

sitting here in a high school class, these stats actually surpised me, I figured they would be higher

Americans are easily manipulated, and have been trained to not think, so why would they?

most here don't know what the consitution is, at all

In fact very few can tell you the difference between the Consitution and the Declaration of Indepence

so like I said not surpising

Re:Accuracy

[Pig Hogger]

If you think warning labels here are bad (and by bad I mean in large number), then whatever you do, don't move to Japan.

Why would warning labels written in japanese would be bad???

Re:Accuracy

[Alsee]

Another shining star of our faith-based presidency.

Never mind the fact that (1) for an issue of such an earthshaking signifigance and years of searching the cupboard is embarassingly bare of evidence, and (2) the religious fundamentalist Al Qeada and the strictly secular Saddam hated/feared each other more than they did the US. Remember, Bin Laden's real hatred and target was the non-fundamentalist governments of Arab nations. Bin Laden doesn't give a rats-ass about happens to the US and other western nations. He just wants his all Arab nations unified under fundamentalist government and society. The only reason Bin Laden turned on the the US and other western nations was because he failed to topple non-fundamentalist Arab governments. And his logic is that the only possible reason he failed in this "obvious" and "holy" and "easy" mission was that thw US and other western nations were "proping up" the current evil Arab governments. Bin Laden's assumption being that as soon as the US and others stop "meddling" in the arab world the arab citizentry will easily rise up and overthrow the current arab governments to impose an islamic theocracy. The Secular Saddam was the very personificaion of Bin Laden's real enemy. And as for Saddam, religious fanatics like Bin Laden represented a threat to his absolute rule.

But heay, enough of that nonsense. Bush has faith in what he's doing, and we should all have faith in Bush's faith.

-

Re:Accuracy

[TheGeneration]

My parents are teachers, as are many of my friends. I'm often disgusted when I hear them whining about not making enough money. They make GREAT money for a job that gives them 3 months off in the summer, 2 weeks around christmas, and one week off in the spring.

The other day I was telling my mother that in England children are taught Algebra begining at age 11 which would be 6th grade. Here in California we don't start Pre-Algebra until age 12, or 13. That puts American students two years behind on instructions. My mother thought that I had made it up, that it was impossible to teach children Algebra while still in Elementry school. I assured here that the higher standards of European schools seems to have only helped maintain the quality of their education.

I'm so tired of listening to teachers whine about their cushy tenured jobs that lower the bar on performance, while paying them well, and giving them months off in the summers. Teachers should be required to work during the summers just like the rest of us. (Not teaching, doing other productive things for the districts they work in.)

Re:Accuracy

[OrangeTide]

Well either Americans are stupid or they just aren't very good on tests. (let's pretend that the surveys had a good sample)

Throughout history there has always been a significant chunk of the population that was behind in education compared to the "elite". Some of the societies have placed these "inferior" people in unfair and difficult to break out of castes. Where as other societies give them the right to vote and hope that people will eventually get a clue.

American children are given a great deal of opportunity, it's just that many of them don't take advantage of it, and often aren't even aware that they are supposed to.

Look at me, I'm a "professional" and I still end my sentences with a preposition. It's not surprising news that Americans (in general) are behind intellectually. But it only takes a few smart cookies with resources at their disposal to support a superpower. I suspect that America leading the pack in industry while being socially behind just frustrates the rest of the world.

ps- there is some truth about carbs being bad for you, especially if you don't exercise. Your body can process only a limited amount of fat per meal, but it is extremely efficient at processing carbohydrates. Although I don't really condone these super-protein diets. I suspect riding a bike and doing some light weight lifting with a diet low in processed foods is probably better, it's certainly well proven for long term health, unlike atkins. But people (me included) are too busy with kids, work, entertainment, etc and choose the easy route. It's not about being stupid, it's just an unwillingness to organize our lives around real health.

Re:Accuracy

[soupdevil]

Sure, Atkins works. There are plenty of ways to starve your body and lose weight. I'm a fan of the "big rock in the throat" diet, myself. It's even more effective than Atkins.

Re:Accuracy

[eno2001]

Home schooling is worthless and private non-religious schools are not an option for many people. Get rid of the public schools and you will see a more abused and ill-educated populace than we've had in this country for over a century. Unless of course we all forget about those people who are working at McDonald's and Walmart and can't afford to send their kids to private schools since they don't really matter anyway. Right? Sorry, but the public schools are better than anything the private sector could ever offer even with all their warts. I know that I don't want my daughter going to the Walmart of private schools once that comes along. And I certainly don't want to be doing home schooling when I know that my own skills in math are pretty abysmal. We're all fucked anyway now that G.W. is in office again. He will make sure that Americans continue to get more ignorant every year he is in office. The only way a Republican run government can keep a hold on stupid people: Make them think that Christianity + the opposition of "evil" (read: gay rights and terrorism) makes you intelligent.

Here's the real truth: I trust a government run by a mix of liberals and conservatives with a heavier lean towards liberals more than I trust any conservative corporation. I don't trust a government overrun with "middle-of-the-road" politicians where the real balance leans towards the conservatives. Right now the government can't be trusted at all. It wasn't so bad during Clinton, but it could have been better. Probably the best president this country ever had was F.D.R. and he was shaped by the time he lived in. Sadly, the history books of this once decent nation will be twisted to paint G Dumbya with the same brush that F.D.R. EARNED by his great works. Personally, I've given up and I hope to make a plan to be out of this hell and in the E.U. within the next decade. ...if I can manage to afford it. In case you can't tell, I didn't vote for Bush. :) Gah! Politics suck ass.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's. Smarten up, kids.

You first.

Re:Accuracy

[edward.virtually@pob]

it sounds like they ARE smartening up. it's the adult who find the results of the survey surprising that need smartening. this country is fubar'd, and if you think it's bad now, just wait until these junior brownshirts start taking office and managing companies. it's not their fault though, they're just doing what we've taught them by example. another fine accomplishment of the pro-censorship factions of BOTH SIDES, left and right. as one would remark on fark: asshats.

Re:Accuracy

[Frizzle Fry]

That's why D&D has and Int score AND a Wisdom score ;)

Knowledge isn't the same as intelligence or wisdom.

Re:Accuracy

[SwimsWithTheFishes]

Great! At least maybe someone will tell us what the HELL the 3 sea shells are! I really gotta go!

Seriously though, what good does it do to complain about the kids - they are no longer taught about the Constitution anymore - it's too hard to learn. Tom Jefferson is a slave owner, someone writing poetry about being a freed slave is held in higher esteem in the American History textbox than Mr. Jefferson. Not that poetry isn't good, fun and thought provoking - but American History is not about poetry.

So the public education system teaches less real facts, and worries about the kids not killing each other. So we have dumb kids.

Sigh....

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're supplied by Donald Rumsfeld and the USA, they aren't called WMDS.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

These radicals want to see the forced death or conversion of all non-muslims.

see also:

http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/ Oklahoma City Bombing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/161537 0.stm North Ireland et al.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9803/20/japan.gas.anniv/ Subway gassings in Tokyo

Muslin terrorism is a VERY SMALL percentage of acts of so called terrorism.

the last non wartime "terrorist" attack on US soil carried out by non-US citizens was http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html 1975 (Puerto Rican Nationalists) and http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html 1993.

pretty good track record compared to most other countries.

Re:Accuracy

[LilGuy]

bravo!

encore! encore!

Re:Accuracy

[commodoresloat]

If it is accepted in schools as "cirriculum," then it can't be propaganda, can it?

Also, if schools spend all their time on propaganda, they won't have time to teach spelling.

Re:Accuracy

[mrogers]

they have stated straight up that they want to *convert or kill* all non-mohammedans.

The extremity of their threats is not related to the probability of their success. If a mad old tramp declares that he'll kill everyone who wears brown shoes on a Thursday, how many billions should we spend on monitoring and fighting him? How many freedoms should we give up to make sure he can't possibly kill a single innocent person?

The threat from extremists must be weighed against the threat from reactionaries, and the numbers are pretty clear: terrorists have killed thousands of people, but repressive governments have killed millions.

in Sweden (IIRC), where in some cities, police have admitted that they no longer have control due to hordes of Islamic immigrants causing chaos.

Thank you for making the real (racial) motivation for your argument completely clear. Please name a single Swedish city where the police "no longer have control". I would have thought that widespread anarchy, riots and looting in Scandinavia would have made the news. Or perhaps you're just talking about ordinary inner-city crime, which you'd never mention in the same breath as terrorism if the criminals weren't Muslims?

Re:Accuracy

[TheGeneration]

It begs the question of whether or not communist countries failed because they had a communist economy, or because they were a dictatorship.

So far all dictatorships have failed. So it's impossible to determine whether or not having a communist economy led to the end of the dictatorship that ran that economy, or vis versa.

Re:Accuracy

[furball]

Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

You mean like this?

From the article:

In 2001 Mr. Young, Mrs. Wyatt and an assortment of other well-paid school administrators, defined the new number-one priority for teaching mathematics, as documented in the curriculum benchmarks, "Respect for Human Differences - students will live out the system wide core of 'Respect for Human Differences' by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors."

That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me.

Re:Accuracy

[Dashing Leech]

"I don't see anyone demanding that Pi be taught as exactly 3."

Ironically the two cases you mention aren't that different. The case of pi is just easier to demonstrate and the model behind it is more complete.

Re:Accuracy

[mudetroit]

That it's propaganda doesn't bother me so much. The fact is, 90% of the people are going to buy-in and live their lives according to propaganda, it's just a question of *whose* propaganda. As you said, raise them in a Catholic school, and they'll be taught that Catholicism has the answers, raise them in a government school and they learn the government's answers, raise them in a [insert-name-here] school and they'll grow up to believe whatever [insert-name-here] believes. I think that more then anything that this depends on the quality of the school. I can only speak from personal perspective of course, but coming from a Catholic school up bringing I never felt as if the Catholic church was presented as having all of the answers. It is perfectly possible for a school to have as its main goal the education of students. It might very well be a rare commodity, but it is possible.

Re:Accuracy

[mrogers]

Can't... move... legs! *nnnng* Too... many... tractors!

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, a full lunar cycle only takes ~28 days, so the reason there are 30 days in a month is indeed because that is how the calendar was made (starting with the actions of the Roman emperors).

Re:Accuracy

[Yokaze]

> "We will bury you." was not a joke.

No, it was a wrong translation and shows the demonization of the USSR. The more correct translation is: "We plan to attend your funeral.".

Re:Accuracy

[Afrosheen]

"So far all dictatorships have failed."

Shhh! Don't say that too loud, Korea or Cuba might hear you! :)

Re:Accuracy

[ikkonoishi]

You mean censorship like how Dan Rather published a report critical of George Bush he was dragged out into the street and shot?

Oh wait he wasn't.

Please note that people pointing out your mistake and demanding you correct it is not censorship. When you do a protest by doing something illegal. It is not censorship when you are arrested for that activity, or shouted down for outright lies and inaccuracies.

Re:Accuracy

[janeil]

Nonsense. Anyone who thinks that: a) the government influences what individual teachers teach or talk about with their students, or b) the teachers' unions have any influence over the actions of individual teachers, is comically mistaken.

"The government has an agenda..." Give me a break.

Perhaps you could cite some actual reference to a school district that is trying to "ban even the constitution and delceration (sic) of independance (sic)?"

Re:Accuracy

[kurzweilfreak]

I don't see anyone demanding that Pi be taught as exactly 3.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html

Re:Accuracy

[Dashing Leech]

'Cause I gotta have faith
I gotta have faith
I gotta have faith, faith, faith
I gotta have faith, faith, faith

Re:Accuracy

[Foobar of Borg]

I'd like to address both your comment and a couple of the AC posters below. Math and Science are necessary in Civics since training in math and science teach you how to think logically. Obviously, if there is a question concerning the first amendment, a rocket trajectory problem or a time-harmonic magnetic flux problem is not going to help you directly. But understanding how to think carefully will.

Now, as to some AC posters wondering how Fundamentalists are demanding the weakening of science and math education, perhaps the precise word demanding is too active of a verb, except of course in the case of evolution. The problem lies in the attitude that fundamentalists take toward science and mathematics. I'm a Christian myself, but I had the incredible misfortune of being raised by a fundamentalist father and had to go to a fundamentalist church. The whole attitude is one of mindless acceptance of dogma that even often contradicts both the direct reading of scripture, the way divine revelation has been taught for the past two thousand years, and just basic logic, such as is commonly used by many Christian writers of old.

Fundamentalists take a very scoffing view of anything that resembles even slightly complicated logic. They want their beliefs plain, simple and mindless. This is what they call "faith", though most people of faith (or lack thereof) would refer to this as blind stupidity. Therefore, they not only hate math and science ("traditions of men"), they hate any form of religion that does not give simplistic answers to complicated problems.

So, to make what has been a long story short, the attitude that the study of mathematics and the sciences provides would stoke one's curiosity when studying other subjects, instead of having one mindlessly accept what one is told and not look more deeply into the subject matter.

Re:Accuracy

[Pxtl]

My wife is studying to be a teacher here in Canada, and I have to agree - the problem is not a matter of wages. If anything is needed in terms of resources for teachers, its simply a matter of making sure they have enough prep time.

The real source of the problem is multidimensional. First, the fact is that teachers are totally unsupervised through their entire workday. Nobody watches the teacher do their daily thing. Even if you have class testing to check for results, that's only one performance review per year. Find me other jobs like that. Besides that, pop-culture of today has moved away from that brief burst in the tech-boom when technical knowledge was considered worthwhile. We've gone back to the '80s - the breakdown seems to be as follows:
- left-wing hippy kids who go into liberal arts to do nothing
- amoral right-wing assholes whose highest aspirations are to be coke-snorting business aristocrats
- mentally fucked-up kids who might be geniuses, but will drop out anyways due to nihilism
- girls who think a blowjob is the highest gesture of love, and anorexia is cool, and therefore have better things to do than school
- keeners who care about nothing but good grades, which are increasingly disconnected from actual learning and intelligence.
- jocks, rappers, and every other subcategory where they only have their eye on one goal, one they've a 1-in-10000 chance of acheiving.

None of those kids will succeed (except the asshole - and he'll only be successful on a personal level, but destructive to everyone around him).

Besides, standardised testing doesnt work - numerous studies have shown this. It dumbs down the kids, it gives kids with particular skills an unfair advantage, has bad biases in poor neighborhoods where kids weren't reared as well as in wealthy neighborhoods, and is generally unhealthy for a school system. There is no clear solution.

I find it funny how people always talk about hiring "coaches" in the States. You'll never hear those words together here in Canada. Coaches are volunteers, or teachers.

The fact is that the only subjects that are really quantifiable are math and science classes, and those aren't the ones that I see the biggest problems in. The only time that I see bad math/science teachers is cases where the Principal doesn't give a hoot about math and science and has simply retasked unqualified teachers into those departments - and in that case, they don't really seem to care about poor performance.

The problem seems to lie in ambiguous arts classes, which are really too unquantifiable for standardised testing. I see many people who breezed through school, through teachers college, and now through work teaching those classes. Nobody notices.

Re:Accuracy

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

That isn't quite true. An insurer is liable for whatever is in the policy, and they'll fight tooth and nail to pay even that.

Re:Accuracy

[Doomdark]

The difference is that terrorism is hardly a significant threat.

I would argue, though, that the "communism" 50s paranoid politicians thought they were fighting against was similarly non-existing bogeyman: the supposedly powerful american communist organization(s), bent on getting revolution in the US, and forming an imminent internal threat. That is; although Soviet Union was a (real) powerful adversary, it was NOT the enemy, supposedly, but these pesky "american traitors". And that was the strawman.

I agree in that terrorists are in the same sense strawmen; created by the hyper-active imagination of people who are lacking enough real-world threats (would a good old famine caused by cricket swarms fix this?). Just like it's suspected that human immunosystem manages to create itself new problems (allergies, other auto-immune diseases) if it gets bored with the lack of external threats, politicians seem prone to similar mental diseases. It feels unnatural NOT to be scared shitless by "someone somewhere"; and there's alway s the need to paint the face of your enemy, real or imaginary.

In the end, "communist" and "terrorist" threats (from US perspective) are very similar: in the first case it's the problem that the military machine lots its enemies after WWII (Germany and Japan), in the second case it was once again the military machine losing good ol' Soviet Union.

Re:Accuracy

[ikkonoishi]

If it is Islam that says "The infidel must be killed or converted." then quite possibly, Yes.

There are many including myself who would love it if these moderate Islamics that we hear so much about would come out and publiclly denouce the Wahabbist extremists. Yet the most you hear is a sort of clucking of tongues while they silently hand money to them.

I am sure that the large percentage of muslims do not want to destroy everyone else, but they are kept quiet by the high ranking clerics and the theocracies that they control with a near iron fist.

These rulers must be brought to heel to prevent a disaster.

Re:Accuracy

[schleyfox]

Its particularly sad with the lawsuits over common sense because Common Law trys to protect against it (Obvious risks and Hazards). Just last week, the Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill that codified what should already be clear. House Bill 1617 protects food vendors from legal action taken against a legal product of theirs. Its sad when it comes to this. (I observed all of this as I am a Page, which brings me to my next point about pubic [sic] schools
I go to a public school and its one of the better ones (NASA and Virginia Tech funding), yet the results of the poll would not be much different there. Give me convenience or give me death, is the battle cry of my generation. We actively help "The Man" put us down (We watch Mtv for christ's sake). We are grateful that Comrade Ashcroft and King George can keep us safe. We consider 50cent to be the epitomy of cool, yet Steven Hawking (if recognized at all) is the funny guy in a wheelchair. We want to spread "freedom" to the middle east while we slowly lose it here at home. In short we are sheep.
I will spare you the cliched (but excellent) Benjamin Franklin quote

Re:Accuracy

[operagost]

Yes, which shows how inept his adminstration was.

Re:Accuracy

[ikkonoishi]

Maybe because unions aren't the champions of free speech and expression?

The purpose of a union is to make money for its members.

Re:Accuracy

[nine-times]

really, what I'm getting at is that all schools will have an outlook or a point of view. They all inundate their students with information in-line with that point of view. This is not bad. This is just how people operate.

The questions are, how worthwhile is the point of view, and how good are they at their inundation?

Re:Accuracy

[dtperik]

Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

I have to disagree with this statement. It's interesting to note that many who do not believe in a higher being routinely dismiss those that do to be unintelligent and to have "checked their brain at the door", so to speak. This is far from the truth. I am a devout believer in Jesus as my Savior. I also happen to love science. This is an incredible universe that has been created by an intelligent creator.

I actually find it humorous to watch so called "experts" in science change their theories of "pre-historic" events to suit every new finding that doesn't match with their previous theory. Especially when in fact all these findings can be attributed to a Divine creation and a world-wide flood (as accurately recorded in the Bible).

I truly believe all these so-called scientists and the rest that adamantly accuse those who believe in a higher being to be intellectually challenged really have their own agenda to push. They don't want to believe there is absolute truth and an absolute morality which their lives must be measured against.

And then there's the base question for all you evolutionists.... where did all the stuff that the universe is made of come from. No matter have far back you go... where did what that came from come from?

But back to the subject. You're #2 point was actually quite on, and I couldn't agree more. There is very little personal responsibility being taught today, especially at home (which can be seen in the court system today... you stub your toe somewhere, and it's an opportunity to sue someone). And much of school is teaching how to feel good about yourself, how to be tolerant of everyone (except for those believer people), how to put a condom on, etc. Let's get back to academics!

Re:Accuracy

[Leo McGarry]

the PATRIOT act has provided a means by which the government in the USA can more easily harrass those saying / printing / broadcasting ideas it does not like

Depending on how you look at it, that's either blatantly false, or true of every law we have.

Yes, the Federal government has the power to conduct investigations when terrorist activity is suspected. Does that translate into "the USA can harass you?" No, it does not. And if you really bend your definitions and conclude that it does mean that, then you could say exactly the same thing about every other law on the books.

it can now more easily punish such people with less dependence on legal niceties - hence the chilling effect.

How many times do I have to say it? There has been no chilling effect. None whatsoever. All there's been is a bunch of people sitting around on their fat asses talking about a chilling effect ... which is exactly the sort of speech that was supposed to have been chilled. So the mere existence of this point of view is evidence of its invalidity.

Re:Accuracy

[silicon not in the v]

In 2001 Mr. Young, Mrs. Wyatt and an assortment of other well-paid school administrators, defined the new number-one priority for teaching mathematics, as documented in the curriculum benchmarks, "Respect for Human Differences - students will live out the system wide core of 'Respect for Human Differences' by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors."

That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me.

You are not very familiar with the jargon and euphemisms used in the political arena. That language about "human differences" and "anti-bias" is actually the liberal position about promoting alternative lifestyles. The part about anti-bias deals with the aspect that anyone who expresses their belief that some choices are right or wrong is accused of bias, hate speech, intolerance, etc. That kind of twisting has turned the word "tolerance" into a one-way joke, where liberal ideas are to be promoted, while conservative ones are banned.

Re:Accuracy

[DarkTempes]

bah, is there a way to make slashdot interpet \n as
? it makes me sad to have to type
all the time (and it makes my comments read wrong too)

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Calories are kilocalories, calories are just calories. I don't know who thought that C vs c was a good way to differentiate between the two, but they should be shot.

Re:Accuracy

[flyingsquid]

The government wants people to give up their rights, either voluntarily or through attrition. "Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's. Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.

Sounds like the words of a sneaky, low-down al-Qaeda loving terrorist sympathizer to me. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a terrorist organization?

Re:Accuracy

[mt v2.7]

Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

Damn straight, remember kids,

Re:Accuracy

[Agent_9191]

Where's my moderator points when I need them to mod that up as high as it can go. That is entirely true. I myself prefer conversations with anybody older than me because they actually care about issues other than something from the entertainment industry. It's sad that the youth of the nation have formed their opinions based on circumstances of the time. And to realize that those opinions end up snowballing through further generations, I'm kinda glad I won't be around when it gets really bad.

Re:Accuracy

[geekschmoe]

A public school system is, by necessity, open to scrutiny by the entire community. Private schools are not.

In short: no.

Private schools are subject to scruitiny by the entire relavent community (i.e. parents that pay for their kids to attend). Furthermore, I believe it's actually manifested much clearer in a private school considering the fact that if a parents have qualms with the teaching practices the school uses, they can take immediate action by pulling their kid out of that school.

Public school, however, is subject to a much more bureaucratic system that is definitely susceptible to the governments agenda.

It seems like running a school like you would run a business really makes a lot of sense.

http://www.capenet.org/facts.html

Re:Accuracy

[voisine]

A public school system is, by necessity, open to scrutiny by the entire community. Private schools are not.

Private schools are open to scrutiny by their customers, public schools are beholden to the state education board no matter what their local communities might wish to do to improve them. Private schools on the whole provide a vastly superior education with far fewer resources.

undamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology.

Demanding the weakening of math?!? What are you smoking?!? Can I have some? As far as science, you are correct. Scientific theories should not be taught not as facts set in stone. Why shouldn't scientific anomolies that appear to conflict with current prevelant theories be presented to students? Why shouldn't they be taught that Scientists don't understand everything yet and some of the stuff in their text books might even be wrong?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the CIA and the DoD report that it was the Iranians that gassed the kurds as Hussein didn't have the type of chem weapons that were used. The Iranians did.

Is that true or was that propoganda of it's day? That's part of the problem.

As to the Iranians well we know he gassed them with the weapons we supplied him with.

Re:Accuracy

[Politburo]

and who the senators represent(the state)

Yeah, if we were living before 1913. With the 17th amendment, senators officially became representatives of the people (although many states were directly electing senators prior to the 17th). While the initial role of senators was to represent the states, it is no longer the case.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!"

I guess thats why the best schools (in terms of test scores) in my area are private schools with religious affiliation. Hey~ maybe they are just rich kids without broken families that go private. Maybe public schools are disadvantaged from a funding standpoint. I'll buy that. But that you have chosen to throw in religion as a scapegoat for a broken system is ridiculous. I suppose the fall of education mirrors the rise of christianity in this country, eh? Less than 25% of Americans attend church weekly, compared with 1970 statistics showing close to 40% doing the same. American education is more secular than ever. I don't recall Creationism 101 as required coursework, do you? 100 years ago, it would have been.

Typical assumptions in todays world... relgion is the cause of all the worlds problems.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorism is not a threat in the USA it was warmonger bush way of going to war and it was a good scapegoat for the economy. If we had real terrorism in this country we would have had more attacks since 9/11.

Re:Accuracy

[kaiser423]

I actually find it humorous to watch so called "experts" in science change their theories of "pre-historic" events to suit every new finding that doesn't match with their previous theory.

I'm sorry, but you're credibility about loving science went right out the window with that one. No one loves science, but then laughs when new evidence is brought to light. When that happens, people who love science are ecstatic, they're curious, they're intrigued, they're motivated. Least of all are they humored.

Science is the process of stumbling around in the dark, and documenting and interpreting what you find. There's almost never any guarantee that what we currently know is right. The same could be said about religious beliefs.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, I have a question for you, are you framilier with the concept of sarcasm?

Re:Accuracy

[operagost]

Peace may require the end of Islam, because it is based on the Qur'an and the Hadiths. These works are based on an Arabic flavor of theocratic fascism and there is no room for competing ideologies. It is quite clear to any Muslim who can recite these writings that the true believer supports the genocide of the Jewish race and the subjugation of all others. The word "Muslim" means "submitter," and that's exactly what the mainstream Muslim should expect of every human being. This is not a radical belief! It's the so-called mainstream Muslims who are radical in their non-scriptural beliefs in peaceful coexistence.

Before you flame me or reach for the moderation selector, try reading some of these works here.

Re:Accuracy

[ikkonoishi]

Why not?

The walmart of education have many good features.

• Cheap
  
• Wide selection of courses
  
• Good quality of information.
  

I don't see what people are always critisizing Walmart for. It has become a large and successful store because it treats its customers like kings, and provides them with what they ask of it.

You might disagree with its labor practices, but everyone I've encountered have said that its benefits package is amazing.

I love this line.

The only way a Republican run government can keep a hold on stupid people: Make them think that Christianity + the opposition of "evil" (read: gay rights and terrorism) makes you intelligent.

I add this.

The only way a Democrat run government can keep a hold on stupid people: Make them think that Activism + the opposition of "evil" (read: Christianity and Republicans) makes you intelligent.

Re:Accuracy

[chris mazuc]

I think i am the only U.S. teacher on the planet who thinks the U.S. teachers get paid plenty. Most of my teacher friends are making 40-50K per year, and have a million dollar retirement pension coming. $50k per year for 20 years = 1 million, though they may live for 30 years thus 1.5 million.

I know a teacher in an area where housing rates are not so cheap, with a masters degree in education and over 10 years experience making less than 40k, nevermind what they started at. No pension either. Yes, in some areas, teachers are paid well, but keep in mind there are vast portions of the united States where teachers are paid shit.

The reason we have so many crappy teachers is that the crappy ones are not removed. Everyoen knows who the crappy teachers are in each school, but the administration hires the teacher that makes their life the easiest (also coaches, probably will be quiet and not complain). Instead, the administrators need to have some sort of reason to hire good teachers.

I second that opinion. If anyone in the education system gets paid too much it's the administrators. Same district as above administrators get 100k+. The administration in general is too removed from the teaching process after several years on the job to be effective anymore, and in my opinion should have a "term limit" where they must return to teaching. That would also be the incentive to hire good teachers, because those would be the people would would be working *with* from now on.

I am probably the only teacher in favor of testing each and every year. I don't care if the teachers "teach to the test". If the test is written correctly, teaching to the test is exactly what should happen. Fire the teachers whose students don't learn anything over the course of 1 year. In order to do this, you have to test each and every student each year. FIRE THEM ALL if you have to.

I have yet to see a standardized test that was not built around the "A is for Average" mentality. I'm no genius, but I practicially (literally a few times) slept through every standardized test I took in school, as did many people I knew. The school boards don't have the resources to create truly good tests for everyone. Even the big name standardized tests have their problems. Again, I think this would be remedied with more administrative contact with the classrooms. I can count on two hands when a member of the administration *ever* sat in on one of my classes. As for firing the ineffective teachers, fire away.

Re:Accuracy

[drank]

I attribute the decline in the U.S. primary education system to the following ills:

1. Significantly reduced funding with respect to inflation, leading to mediocrity in staffing and inadequate facilities. The tax cutting regime that started with Ronald Reagan in California has starved the schools of adequate funds to operate.

OK, that's a reasonable hypothesis. Let's see what the data says. This is a spreadsheet from the 2004 federal budget, showing total educational outlays from 1962 - 2004. The bottom line is the one you want to look at, showing that educational outlays have grown approx 8x in constant 1996 dollars during that time. They did decline under Reagan (as you note), but then grew again under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. So significantly reduced funding is probably not a cause of educational failure, and certainly not a cause from 1990-present.

2. Parents take less interest in their own education, as jobs become more demaning. Relatively wealthy parents work long hours at "exempt" jobs, unable to assist their kids with homework. The kids are raised by TV instead.

This isn't as easy to validate with data, although I'd be interested in seeing any that you might have. Of the teachers I know personally, most say that lack of parental involvement in their kids' education is a big factor in student failure. That's not exactly the same thing as your argument, but it's similar. So I agree that this is a partial cause.

3. Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

It's certainly true that fundamentalists want to change the teaching of evolution. I hadn't heard they were opposed to math - maybe you'll provide a link. To date, they've had no notable success in doing so, and the Supreme Court has remained unsympathetic to arguments that teaching biological evolution infringes on 1st ammendment religious freedoms. So it's hard to see how this could be a cause of educational decline today, although maybe it could become one if the political & legal situation changes.

I'll posit two other causes for you to consider:

4. American schools have an entrenched bureaucracy and union structure that is powerful enough to block virtually any proposed reform, save that of pumping more money into the existing system. For example, in Washington State, our teachers' unions campaigned vigorously and successfully against our recent charter school referrendum.

5. There are very few feedback mechanisms in the public school system, where a teacher's job performance determines his professional success, or where parents can choose to remove their students (and tax dollars) from a failing school. In most other professions, these feedback mechanisms are the way in which failing "firms" are reformed or replaced.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

> Also, if schools spend all their time on propaganda, they won't have time to teach spelling. Speaking purely for myself.... I would rather deal with someone with critical thinking skills who can't spell for shit than a spelling nazi who can't think for themself, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

Well, you'll get a huge argument from the few Communists left in this part of the world, but it's pretty evident that Marx knew that there would have to be a period of dictatorship; the "dictatorship of the Proletariat." Of course, this lovely little open-ended concept was used by those implementing Communist states, and I suppose Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro still justify it; sort of a never ending revolution, so that anybody whose a threat to your power base is a threat to the revolution.

It must also be noted that Communist uprisings were not successful where they were supposed to be; in the industrialized countries. Russia and China, the biggest Communist states, were still fundementally agrarian societies that, according to the Marxist master plan, weren't ready yet for Communism. The industrialized governments, as much out of cynical ass-covering as out of any general desire for more liberal domestic policies, saw the trouble that might come and created constitutions and enlarged the numbers of voters to stave off the possibility of getting chucked out by workers' uprisings.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great, now how about something within the past century? I'm sure you can get an example for anything if you go back far enough, but that hardly explains the woes of the modern American education system.

Re:Accuracy

[staeiou]

Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

Could you please name one thing besides evolution v. creationism that the religious right has wrecked in the basis of science and math? I don't see Jerry Fallwell jumping up saying that cosine functions are the devil, or that kinematic equations violate the 10th commandment. There is so much more to science than just evolution.

You do have a point, but you're killing your own case by saying just as many generalizations and mis-facts as the other side is.

Re:Accuracy

[paganizer]

While you have an interesting point of view, I remain in disagreement.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, seeing how "framilier" is not a word, I don't think he can be "framilier" with anything!

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to waste bandwidth, you fucking troll.

Re:Accuracy

[biryokumaru]

your final statement is ambiguous, i suggest this interpretation: the wealthy are willing to sacrifice the freedoms of the poor for financial security. its the inherent flaw of the capitalist model.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are they called "neo-conservatives" anyway? Their agenda and priorities seem closer to the traditional conservatives than what is considered "conservative" in the US conventional wisdom.

The conservatives "stood at the right" of the king, was the saying from which "the right" came from. What is often caracterised as the right, or conservatives are tendencies leaning towards the Libertarians (a.k.a. anarchists) which favour freedom above all else. Completely free market with minimal government intervention (just enough to enforce the rules of the games on all players). But other than that, freedom to embark on any enterprise, to make it big or fall on your face based on your merits or lack thereof. They are opposed in economic perspective to the other extreme: the communists where private property is not allowed and in enveryone gets an even share of the collective pie. Both are idealistic visions, and eventually fail due to the development of the true right, the "traditional" conservatism.

The libertarian ideals are the fruit of the ambitions of the trading bourgoisie coming out of the middle ages into the more liberal renaissance... and it has represented the ideals of the United States, and of course eventually been erroneously been assiciated with the "conservatives" and "the right".

But the true right, the traditional conservatives, are all about a 2 tier system, with the legal system used to enforce it. It is a combination of complete freedom, and complete state control. One class of elites, manages to control power, and ensures that within their little community freedom without government intervention, while the masses are kept in their limited position, through strictly enforced, all-encompassing government intervention.

This is what tries to be called "neo-conservatism" today, but as you can see, it is the old traditional system that has existed in pretty much all cultures. Both idealistic visions of true comunal living or total freedom have failed because a small group of individuals through the tools of total goverment control (in communist states) or through amassing enough personal wealth through granted freedom (think monopolies etc) can now have enough power to limit other's ability to gain similar privileges. This is the "traditional cons" not the "neo-cons".

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting to note that many who do not believe in a higher being routinely dismiss those that do to be unintelligent and to have "checked their brain at the door", so to speak. This is far from the truth.

Funny, your statements do not contradict that claim.

I actually find it humorous to watch so called "experts" in science change their theories of "pre-historic" events to suit every new finding that doesn't match with their previous theory.

Uh, that's the point of science -- or indeed, the point of any human intellectual endeavor: to adjust our understanding to be in accordance with the facts.

Especially when in fact all these findings can be attributed to a Divine creation and a world-wide flood (as accurately recorded in the Bible).

Of course, this is total nonsense, and a prime example of the previous poster's claim, "Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology." But if you want a scientific debate on the lack of evidence for creationism, you should go to a forum such as talk.origins.

I truly believe all these so-called scientists and the rest that adamantly accuse those who believe in a higher being to be intellectually challenged really have their own agenda to push.

False dichotomy: most Christians have no problem with any scientific theories (of evolutionary biology, cosmology, etc.), and probably most scientists in this country, like most citizens, are Christian. Being Christian doesn't mean one has to be as ignorant as yourself, and those who object to creationism don't have any fundamental problem with Christianity, but with the ridiculous creationist claims.

They don't want to believe there is absolute truth and an absolute morality which their lives must be measured against.

Whether I believe there is absolute truth or absolute morality has nothing to do with whether I choose to accept the facts of evolution, Big Bang cosmology, etc. If the only way for you to make a point is to invent a strawman, you may as well stop arguing now.

And then there's the base question for all you evolutionists.... where did all the stuff that the universe is made of come from.

(Note: you're confusing evolution with cosmology.)

I don't know where it came from. There are some speculative theories, none of which have yet been supported. It's possible that science may never be able to answer that question.

What's your point? There are lots of things that people don't know, and may never know. Once upon a time people didn't know what caused lightning. Should they then have concluded that lightning is what happens when the gods are angry? Many creationists ask that question, and I always find it bizarre. What does it have to do with evolution, or whether one should believe in God, or anything?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. The Indian state of Kerela has had a democratically elected Communist government for some time now.

In the 1980s literacy across India was hovering at around 30%, in Kerela it was closer to 90%.

Numbers for child mortality and life expectency have been similarly impressive.

Re:Accuracy

[BigDogCH]

Wahoo! Someone I can agree with for a change!

I would also like to point out that every college class I had (teaching me to become a teacher) was being lead by a person who dropped out of teaching. Generally they were a lousy teacher, and guess what, they were still lousy at the college level! I made it through to become a state certified teacher, in the state with the highest standards of all 50 states. I did it with nearly a 4.0, while never staying awake through a class. The classes were horrid, pointless, and had no real purpose. Should I also say that I graduated from the University ranked in the top 10 in the nation for their education program? Many of my peers went into elementary education, with a 4.0 GPA, and yet couldn't understand the concept of fractions! They are now employed, and I am not. I won't coach, so I don't work.

Re:Accuracy

[tgibbs]

I think the collapse of Communism was a good deal more complex than the claims that Reagan outspent the Soviets. The system hadn't really worked all that well for decades.

No, Khruschev threatened to bury us economically in Soviet products, but it worked out the other way around. While our chaotic capitalist system reaped huge profits off of technological innovation, the Soviet Union's vaunted planned economy fell further and further behind. The great benefits of Communism that supposedly justified all of that repression never materialized.

Re:Accuracy

[Specter]

++++

To: 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)
From: The Computer
Subj: The Computer is your friend

Body:
The Computer (your friend) has identified you as one of:

o Communist
o Mutant
o Unhappy
o Some combination of communist, mutant, and/or unhappy

Failure to be non-communist, non-muntant, and/or happy is treasonous. Treason is punishable by death.

Please report to your nearest Red for termination. A clone will be dispatched to your family.

Love,

The Computer

Re:Accuracy

[BigDogCH]

As for lazy administration...how about this? I learned that substitute teaching doesn't get you a job. The admins around here don't hire their subs because there is a sub shortage. Instead, they would rather hire a teacher that they have never seen teach. Heck, they knew they would have an opening in my field, and while I was long-term-subbing, they wouldn't even take the time to come see me in action. Instead they hired someone else for the position. They called to tell me I wasn't chosen, but in the same call they asked me to teach 5 months of Advanced World History (not anywhere near what I am qualified for). Again, the admins do what makes their job easier, not what is best for the students.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

How are the moderate Muslims coming out and denouncing the extremists going to help? Except to shut Billy Bob, I didnt finish 6th grade, podunk up, this will help nothing. In fact it will probably make the extremists worse, in their quest to prove to the world that they are "more" muslim than the moderates.

Why wont the catholic church openly denounce the sexual molestation of children by its priests? In my opinion the raping of children is a much more horrific crime.

Who are you to decide which leaders need to be "brought to heel"?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"We will bury you." was not a joke.

Agreed. It wasn't a joke; it was a mistranslation.

A brief exerpt from the prefix of http://www.slavica.com/trc/trc_preface.html/, "The Russian Context: The Culture Behind The Language" (emphasis added):

To know another country's culture, one has to know the language of that culture, or serious misunderstandings can arise. A famous example of this occurred in the 1950's, when the American public, already suspicious of the Soviet Union, was whipped into an anti-Soviet frenzy by a remark made by Nikita Khrushchev. Khrushchev said, "My vas pokhoronim", which was translated in the United States as "We will bury you," and this led to even more dire Cold War tension. The actual translation of the sentence is something like, "We will say funeral rites over you," in other words, we Soviet Communists will be around long after you capitalists have lived out your time. One sentence, one mistranslation, years of misunderstanding.

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

I'll leave it to the historians of a later age to figure out how much Reagan did. I don't think anybody can argue that he had some influence, but the collapse of the USSR was, so far as I can tell, a done deal long before Reagan came on the scene.

I wonder, even without Reagan, if the USSR would have survived to the present day. Perhaps it might have been better for all concerned if Gorbachev's reforms had been given some time. He certainly wasn't the kindly man that everyone seems to think he was (ask the Lithuanians), but still I think easing out of the older model might have been better than having it simply collapse wholesale (but that's the great thing about what-ifs like this, you can play the game without ever being proven wrong).

Unfortunately, it looks like the Russians are falling back on old habits, and Putin is behaving more and more like an autocratic czar all the time. His attempts to recreate the old Empire seem to have been crapped on by the Ukrainians (good for them), but the Bear is stirring, and the idea that it would be a Western-style democracy is looking more like a quaint 1990s urban myth all the time.

Re:Accuracy

[Austerity Empowers]

I don't think this is an interesting question. The USSR and China were/are both quasi-democratic, I agree they are not the bastions of democratic idealism that we'd like but they have the basis of democracy in them somewhere.

I think perhaps communism is not fundamentally compatible with true democracy. Democracy by nature is support of the idea of "collective self-interest", wherein communism seeks to achieve balance for everyone. Such a system has to be centrally managed, people cannot decide what is fair for everyone including themselves, only what is best for everyone else. You can't be objective when it comes to you and yours. It's the basis fo almost any stable legal system for that reason.

Communism is just not compatible with human nature, for the simple reason that I and I alone am in it for myself. Throw in the fact that the vast majority of people feel this way (however deeply they may hide it) and the system breaks.

There's good stuff to be learned from those types of philosophies, but they're not sustainable in their purest senses.

Re:Accuracy

[servognome]

you're right, though I'm sure if you asked people how long it takes the moon to go around the earth, you'd get everything from a day to a year, heck you'd probably get somebody saying it goes around the sun.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, yes, the obictory 5+ "Americans suck" post.

Re:Accuracy

[C10H14N2]

Hear, hear... I wish the Reagan mythology were known as such and not taken as fact.

The facts are that the Soviet satellites were crumbling away DECADES before Reagan hit the White House. Think: Hungarian Revolt, 1956; Prague Spring, 1968; Lech Walesa in Gdansk, 1970; Charter 77, duh, 1977... etc. etc. ...and, one of the best ones of all, Gorby's memoirs where he muses something to the effect of "how on earth could we run a state spanning from the Danube to the Bering Strait while arguing at the highest levels of government about the price of women's pantyhose?"

Yes, it was pantyhose, not Star Wars, behind the fall of the Soviet Union.

Re:Accuracy

[Reverend Joe]

so I am glad we are fighting these radicals

uhhhh, where are we fighting them, pray tell?

Oh, I see the plan -- we cleverly let them escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan, so that we could attack ... IRAQ!

Which is the home state of the TERR-WRISTS!!! AND, they have MUCHO DUBYA-EM-DEEs and yellow banana cake Uranuses!!! Plus, their previous leader, that we righteously ousted, was a devout Muslim, who mandated that EVERYONE in his country be RELIJUSS extremisses, required women to wear veils at all times, denied them edjumakation, and was one of the IRANIAN mullets, like that SHAWL guy!!!!!

Yeah, we kick A**!!
AMERICA, FSCK YAYUH!!!!!

Oh ... wait, what's that you say?

====================

Please ... ignore me -- don't let the facts get in the way of you feeling SO GOOD about that little tingle in your teeny little weener because of all the macho butt-whooping we're doing ... to a country that never attacked us, never had anything to do with an attack on us, and had no military to speak of.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a radical belief! It's the so-called mainstream Muslims who are radical in their non-scriptural beliefs in peaceful coexistence.

It's a big planet and religion sometimes has to evolve to accomodate people. Christianity is the biggest example of this. Muslims will have to change as well, or face the fact that they are at odds with the rest of the world. It's rather unfortunate that so many are choosing the latter.

Re:Accuracy

[Captain Splendid]

You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.

They already are.

And they're loving every MTV-viewing, Hilfiger-wearing, cellphone-talking minute of it.

Re:Accuracy

[cassidyc]

absolute pish.

We in britain have had the "spectre of terrorism" for longer than you whiny yanks care to mention.

Hell it was you fuckers that were financing it.

Terrorism is only an issue if you let it be one.

Carry on with your life and you are still more likely to be killed by a lightening strike than an act of terrorism

paranoid little fuck

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

> Hear, hear... I wish the Reagan mythology were
> known as such and not taken as fact.

As I said, I'm willing to concede that Reagan's massive spending increases to beat the Soviets probably did have the effect of speeding things up, but the USSR was doomed long before Reagan came along. I still think that it might have been preferable for things to have taken a somewhat more natural course than the abrupt nature of the final dissolution. It left the world with some awful messes.

Re:Accuracy

[NormalVisual]

It's also been my experience that many who are deeply involved in the sciences are as political as they are scientific, and woe be to him that tries to present a new way of looking at something that contradicts what someone has spent years promoting, or who presents a theory that makes someone look bad. Google for "Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis" for an example of what I mean.

Scientists can be some of the most arrogant assholes out there, and have been throughout history.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

it begs the question

no it doesn't

Re:Accuracy

[TheGavster]

The supreme soviet was supposed to be sort of congress-like, but got co-opted by other bodies. At least they tried ...

Re:Accuracy

[starrsoft]

Check out Germany and France. There's your answer. No.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The walmart of education have many good features.

And would have many bad features.

Like being made in China.

Actually, I'm joking - because I could only wish American education was half as good as China's

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

We called his bluff and now he's rotting in a prison cell

You must come from some alternate reality. In this reality America is ALWAYS wrong no matter what we do, and even if we had done it the other way we'd still be wrong.

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

> I don't think this is an interesting question. The
> USSR and China were/are both quasi-democratic, I
> agree they are not the bastions of democratic
> idealism that we'd like but they have the basis of
> democracy in them somewhere.

Having elections doesn't make a country a democracy, I'm afraid, particularly when the state (through the organ of the Party) picks a single slate of candidates. That's not democracy, merely a pathetic mockery.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, two examples of marvelously successful dictatorships.
Now for extra credit, name ONE that
survived past the death of it's dictator
. One that survived through successive dictators without being a tyranical monarchy.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If I know my soviet history correctly, after the second 1917 Russian revolution, USSR was temporarily a multi-party democratic country. That's before the communists, wich commanded a majority, decided that the other parties were unnecessary. I don't really support communism (just look at most of their history...), however I wouldn't like to equate democracy with no communism or dictatorship with communism either. I've read similar claims saying that famine and democracy have never coexisted in a country, I never liked that argument either. The mentality is similar to "everyone is in this line, so I should be in this line" which tends to allow room for shallow thinking to occur.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Most cars never managed to kill over a thousand people at once. Being overly paranoid isn't the answer, but it's nothing to brush off either. Did you know that the water supply for New York city only has 3 sources? That in itself is enough to worry me that maybe some crazy person (not just a terrorist) could harm a lot of people.

Re:Accuracy

[poot_rootbeer]

"Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's. Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up. ...just like the kids who were fed storied about Communism were in the 1950's?

Hm. I think I see your point.

Re:Accuracy

[Rhone]

Peace may require the end of Islam, because it is based on the Qur'an and the Hadiths. These works are based on an Arabic flavor of theocratic fascism and there is no room for competing ideologies.

Hey, as long as we're throwing out religions with sacred texts that promote hatred and intolerantly condemn those of all other religions, why stop at Islam? Might as well get rid of Judaism and Christianity too.

Re:Accuracy

[dajak]

The system hadn't really worked all that well for decades. [..] but the USSR's internal cohesion, which had not been so great and all-encompassing as the Soviets had let on, was fragmenting.

An explanation that, I feel, is often overlooked is that Tsarist Russia didn't work that well either. When I picture 19th century Russia "internal cohesion" is not the right word to describe it. The empire required a certain measure of terror to stay together, before and after the revolution. The country made a great leap forward economically after the victory in WWII, and the combination of communist idealism, WWII-related patriotism, and deceiving American rhetoric of a "missile gap" kept people believing in a bright future.

The stagnation under Brezhnev, and the changing attitude of the US and Europe, was enough to kill that hope. The leadership became insecure and the people restless. Reagan plays a role in that, but the lost battle for the hearts and minds of Europe is what really mattered to communist aspirations.

On average the Soviet Union did pretty well throughout its existence, in any way that can be measured and compared to its predecessor and successor. Look up the figures. Modern Russia isn't really doing better. The bear is still there, and it is as "dangerous" as it always was. In the past it was overestimated, now maybe underestimated. History tells us nothing more than that it is capable of defeating a medium-sized European country on its own soil. Now they have nuclear weapons, of course.

Re:Accuracy

[anagama]

• All dicatorships fail when the dictator makes a wrong move and his enemies take advantage of the error.

Not saying dictatorships are good - I personally wouldn't want to live under one. But historically, given enough time, all governments fail. The long lived ones of the present simply have not had sufficient time to fail.

Re:Accuracy

[wuice]

Ann Coulter has said that all Muslims should be converted to Christianity or killed. Do you really think there's something more inherently good or moral about fundamentalist Christians over fundamentalist Muslims?

The problem isn't the religion, but the blind, hatemongering of fundamentalism from which terrorism (both foreign and US-sponsored) stems.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

There were supposed to be communist spies everywhere in USA, and there were supposed to be anti-Stalinists everywhere in USSR. The sad story with USSR was that many, and I mean many, were sent to mock trials and sent to forced labor camps, or gulags, or executed, to never come back. The soviet mock trials were so shabby, you were guilty if they wanted to make you guilty, and the judge used biblical imagery (in Soviet Russia, nonetheless!!!) with a touch of anti-semitic rhetoric in their pronouncements.

Granted Soviet citizens had it pretty bad compared to US citizens, both peoples lived under a great level of fear, and mentally controlled by fear as well, into accepting erosions on their civil liberties. While now only a minority of US citizens believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified, the fact that the majority still re-elected Bush, to me, seems like an indication that we are not living in unlike times. Although we are not suspecting each other of being terrorists outside of Arabic people and airports, the level of erosion on civil liberties in the US seems greater than during the cold war. Treatment of Guantanamo enemy combatants even before actually finding them guilty, and the government's ability to secretly search any US citizen's house without a search warrant and not tell you about it for a month under the USA PATRIOT Act, to give two examples.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't think the phrase, "We will say funeral rites over you" would whip the American public into the same anti-Soviet frenzy?

Re:Accuracy

[Mike Rubits]

If terrorism is the same as communism, why will we live in a corporate controlled company when we grow up, whereas we didn't during the communist scare?

Re:Accuracy

[Zemran]

While I was in Russia last year I did not notice any significant change. There are still rich people, poor people and a powerful army. It is us that changed. We think we won a game that they just stopped playing. Some of the satellites are now European but they cost more to keep than they were worth. It is all just propoganda.

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

> History tells us nothing more than that it is
> capable of defeating a medium-sized European
> country on its own soil. Now they have nuclear
> weapons, of course.

I think that assessment is way off. Clearly there was a point when, if unchecked, the Soviet Union could have ridden over a sizable chunk of Central and Western Europe. Certainly Allied thinkers in the immediate post-WWII days were quite concerned about this, and there was something of a movement to attack the Soviet divisions in Eastern Europe and drive them back. Of course, this WWIII scenario was never to be. The economic and human costs of such an enterprise, however the ultimate good might have been justified, were just too much.

You are right, of course, that Czarist Russia was a bad place to live. The KGB had its predecessors in the Czarist secret police, and it wasn't the Communists that invented trucking undesirables off to hell holes.

What's surprised me the most in my adult readings about Russia and China is how much the Communist leaders ultimately modelled themselves (counsciously or unconciously) on pre-revolutionary archetypes. Mao was in many ways little different than his Imperial predecessors, and Stalin wasn't that much worse than some of the Czars.

These so-called breaks with the past weren't really all that great after all. The underlying culture and traditions were still there, and the ways to control, terrorize and reward the people were still the same.

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

I used to play cello in Soviet orchestra, now I sell froggie pops

The people in your country must have strange tastes. Frozen amphibians, yum. ;)

Re:Accuracy

[mpoulton]

"Carry on with your life and you are still more likely to be killed by a lightening strike than an act of terrorism" Unfortunately, that's not true anymore. About 100 people a year in the US are killed by lightning strikes. We have 20 years to go of zero terrorist activity before terrorism and lightning become equal hazards on average.

Re:Accuracy

[Da Fokka]

girls who think a blowjob is the highest gesture of love, and anorexia is cool, and therefore have better things to do than school

We have got to get more of those in Holland :)

Re:Accuracy

[Jeremi]

That language about "human differences" and "anti-bias" is actually the liberal position about promoting alternative lifestyles.

One of the problems with the right wing is that they cannot (or will not) tell the difference between tolerance and promotion. To them, tolerance is promotion. So of course they insist that the one is just a "code word" for the other. That doesn't make it so.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know the Bolsheviks were funded with money from American industrialists? Rockefeller and Morgan. Henry Ford sent at least $20 million to the Nazis in the 20's, at least. Since all these guys were elitist social engineers, it makes sense; to consolidate your power at home, you need a powerful enemy abroad. Did you know we (as in U.S.) gave ICBM technology to the Soviets in the early 70's? Or that the U.K. Labor government gave the commies Rolls-Royce jet engines in the late 40's? We sold them wheat, cheaply, when they were too incompetent to feed themselves. Why? To keep the Soviets in the game, because the international elite needed a powerful foreign enemy to menace the taxpayers with. Otherwise, they would have collapsed in the 70's. So, in a sense, "We will bury you," was a joke from the outset.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... it's a leap year every fourth year, except on centuries, unless the century is divisible by 400.

So the overall yearly day fraction is 1/4-1/100+1/400, which is .2425, which is pretty close to the .2422 that would have been more correct (verenal equinox year, I think, which is more or less like the tropical year).

I've always been pretty impressed that astronomers had managed to nail it that accurately as far back as the time of Pope Gregory.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to reply on something that's been addressed, but:
The difference is that terrorism is hardly a significant threat

Come on now. Well over 3500 Americans have lost their lives to terrorism over the last few decades. Dozens have been kidnappened and thousands more have been wounded. (Khobar Towers: 19 killed, over 370 wounded, just as an example) And this is just AMERICA. If you care about the rest of the world, they all have it worse. The Brits, the Russians, God, the poor middle east, everyone else deals with it daily. We ignored the problem with Al Queda (letting them attack us repeatedly prior to 9/11) and people like the above kept saying "its not a significant threat." Are we still going to hear that now that we have been attacked on our own soil?

Are you going to wait until the terrorists get the potential to "destroy all life on this planet" and then count them as a threat? It might be a little late at that point...

You can disagree about the Iraq war, but the Afghani war was (and is) needed. And Terrorism is MOST DEFINATELY A THREAT.

Re:Accuracy

[Da Fokka]

Hah, yes, the obictory 5+ "Americans suck" post.

Allow me to perform another classic: The obligatory +5 you don't even speak your goddamn own language post.

Re:Accuracy

[John Courtland]

I don't know man, I got a buddy who adjuncts at the local CC and he makes precisely dick. Masters in Bio and has a good rating on ratemyprofessor.com (no link 'cause it's not important). Some really do care, and spend summer teaching. They get nothing compared to the effort they put in. I work with them every day (IT at a High School). Sure, some are stupid and lazy. But some really get paid nothing for what they do.

Re:Accuracy

[Rhone]

I actually find it humorous to watch so called "experts" in science change their theories of "pre-historic" events to suit every new finding that doesn't match with their previous theory.

Errr, isn't that the point of science? You get new evidence, you revise/expand/whatever your theories to fit that evidence. As opposed to dogmatic belief systems, where you persist in holding on to your original theory no matter how much contradicting evidence you see.

I have my own spiritual beliefs, but as far as what gets taught publically, I'll choose the scientific way.

Especially when in fact all these findings can be attributed to a Divine creation and a world-wide flood (as accurately recorded in the Bible).

Yeah yeah, and they can be just as easily attributed to the creation myths of dozens of other religions. Which one is right? Oh, yeah, the one you grew up with. How open-minded.

One of my favorite sayings I heard frequently from one of my more experimentally-oriented Psychology professors: "A theory that explains everything explains nothing." If you truly "love science" as you say, then you should spend some time thinking about that.

And then there's the base question for all you evolutionists.... where did all the stuff that the universe is made of come from. No matter have far back you go... where did what that came from come from?

Okay, and I'll throw that question back at you: Where did "God" come from?

This philosophical dilemma is the same whether you believe in any kind of divinity or not. Any time you imagine a Beginning--whether it's God or The Big Bang (or a combination of both!)--you have to ask yourself "But what came before that?" God is no more or less exempt from that question than The Big Bang is.

Re:Accuracy

[Catbeller]

"Oh wait he wasn't."

No, he was just fired, his staff canned, the entire news organization replaced with more Bush-friendly types. His rep was smeared with an unproven charge of forged evidence that his provider was unable to refute for fear of ruining his source's life.
The story of Bush's golden slide from the Guard was permanently stamped as "false", even though Palast broke - and proved true - that story four years ago. NO ONE will take on on Bush's people, else they get the Wilson/Rather treatment. Hell, Rove was willing to nuke an entire CIA front company to get the WIFE of Wilson! That's showing anyone who's thinking og growing a pair that their life is worth exactly one tub of used kitty litter. Who needs government censorship when corporate censorship works so much better?

Re:Accuracy

[Jeremi]

We called his bluff and now he's rotting in a prison cell. Cry me a river.

And more than 50,000 people have died as a result of the US invasion. If you want to cry a river, cry for them.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, nothing for you to see here, go read your bible please.

Re:Accuracy

[Tenebrous]

In our school district a parent has to get permission from the teacher and school administration before the parent can monitor a class and see what is being taught and how well. Of course, none of the teachers I spoke with would allow a parent to sit silently in the back and observe.

This was even true for phys. ed. I spoke with a phys. ed. instructor who informed me that "parents might cause trouble" so none were welcome.

These are the same teachers that complain the parents aren't involved enough in the child's education.

Re:Accuracy

[kiltedtaco]

And N people are dead.

(You fill in the N. Pick between 1,475 and 100,000.)

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"When you do a protest by doing something illegal. It is not censorship when you are arrested for that activity"

True to a degree, but what happens when protesting itself is made illegal? We supposedly have the right to peaceably assemble in the United States, yet in most populated areas this right no longer means anything. The mere act of gathering without getting a permit (a permit to assemble?!?) is an offense for which you can be arrested.

Re:Accuracy

[DJCF]

Damn good show that, but I only caught a single episode. Any chance you could post the torrent site?

Re:Accuracy

[ikkonoishi]

I hate to point out the obvious, but the extremists are already at the point where they will attack any targets they can.

If they stopped getting support from other Muslims they would quickly kill themselves off.

The leaders that need to be brought to heel are the leaders who are oppressing their people to maintain their own power. I would give you a list, but I'm sure you've heard it already.

Re:Accuracy

[Creepy]

If you want to get technical, the USA is not a Democracy, it's a Republic. A Democracy is mob rule, while a Republic is representative rule. You sorta alluded to that in paragraph 2 but not in paragraph 1... The communists had no ruling by the people and I don't believe there's ever been a successful Communist country - they're all Communist Dictatorships. A Communist Dictatorship is a hybrid that insists on a single ruler to dictate the spread of wealth and relies on the strength of its army to maintain control rather than the cooperation of the people.

The main problem with Communism in pure form is incentives for hard work get diluted on the masses, so it generally deteriorates into a welfare state when used on a large populace. In small groups it works great - Mennonites, for example, are basically a Communist group - though that could be argued because they aren't forced to share, they just do for the good of the community.

A free market has nothing to do with Communism, technically, but is generally associated with Democracy because of the Dictatorship imposing on what you can or cannot have. A true Communism does not block freedom of choice for what you can or cannot have.

In a nutshell, Communism and Democracies are great ideals, but tend towards Anarchy. Dictatorships and Republics are more stable due to their central leadership (and therefore quicker control of laws, armies, and resource allocation). Communism and Democracy are not mutually exclusive - you could have a Communist Democracy where everyone gets to vote (for laws and military actions) but all resources are divvied equally.

Re:Accuracy

[losinggeneration]

Communism was this vaguely threatening bogeyman who could lob nuclear missles at your country

Yes, WWIII would have been threatening (assuming all the nuclear bombs being thrown back and forth would be called WWIII or if anyone was around to call it that.) Not to mention that there were some very close calls during the Cold War that could have sparked that to happen

Re:Accuracy

[randallpowell]

I doubt it. Rest of the world is mostly captialist so a communist nation would have to isolate itself from international trade just to maintain a pure communist economy. That and communism would require us to remove private property which none of us will do. Afterall, we worked hard for our Playboy collections.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Now for extra credit, name ONE that survived past the death of it's dictator

OP already did: Nth Korea. Go get yourself an education.

Re:Accuracy

[f64]

wow. i had no idea that sweden had such a problem!

please let me know what cities i should avoid; i live in sweden and would appreciate any information you have! ohmygod!

really really frightened now - f64

Re:Accuracy

[randallpowell]

Bush is backed by Evangical Christians who believe that creating "kingdom of god" on Earth would cause Jesus to return. In other words, a Christian theocracy with literal interpritation of the Bible would require non-Christians to convert or die for stopping Jesus from returning. That is why he gets support and they took over the Republician party.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The government wants people to give up their rights, either voluntarily or through attrition. "Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's. Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.

How does a "government wants" lead to a "corporate controlled country"??? Too much Rollerball on the brain? Focus.

Re:Accuracy

[The One and Only]

No, that's a wrong translation and shows undue sympathy to the USSR.

The translation is generally contested. From what I've read, Khruschev meant "We will attend your funeral" but said "We will bury you." But Khruschev wasn't the only politician with a tendency to misspeak.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

That and communism would require us to remove private property which none of us will do. Afterall, we worked hard for our Playboy collections.

Yes, but you forget communism would collectivise this private property, meaning we would all be able to look at everyone's Playboy collections! :}

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

A public school system is, by necessity, open to scrutiny by the entire community. Private schools are not.

That is not an advantage. I don't want "community leaders" (aka unemployed reverends) telling my education suppliers how to spend my education dollars. Are there times when more eyes on the providers is helpful? Yes. It is also true that too many cooks spoil the pot. A balance I'd rather see resolved through free enterprise as opposesed to g-run schools where doodles.gun=crimes.federal.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

No chilling effect?
Check this out: a library in rural Deming, Washington was ordered by the FBI to turn over its patron information because someone wrote in the margins of a book about Osama bin Laden.
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/10/komo _small_town.html/

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

Did you know there's never been a communist economy in a democratic political system? Every communist state has been run by a dictatorship or some form. All dicatorships fail when the dictator makes a wrong move and his enemies take advantage of the error.

I'd guess there is a schism between the goals of the two. A communist economy has to be based on central planning and allocation equally, while a democracy is about garnering power and benefits to the majority or the privileged plurality. And before anyone goes knee-jerk reactive, I'm a conservative, and I'm just talking about the theoretical systems involved -- there has never been a large-scale democracy, so we don't know if a capitalist economy would work with that either.

The best case government is a benevolent dictatorship (but like true democracies, there haven't been any). If you were offered the opportunity, don't you believe you could do a better job of running the country than the scoundrels in power? If you had the best interests of the citizens at heart, what economic sytem would work best?

Re:Accuracy

[randallpowell]

Here, here! Our educational system is a joke. It puts too much focus on sports. Teachers complain about pay yet they don't want to work for it. No one teaches the essentials, just enough for a fatory job at best. Hardly any college prep unless they went to private school or have wealthy parents. Our nation will suffer from it. Look at our last election.

Re:Accuracy

[BalkanBoy]

And how many people have you met that you've called smart that were just naturally intelligent but lacked knowledge (either general/common knowledge or specialized, as in a degree in something)?

Raw 'smarts' (a.k.a. natural intelligence) is an unused potential lest it's coupled with enormous amounts of knowledge/experience.

You can't simply split the two and have a wholly-rounded individual with only one dimension fulfilled - someone who knows shit but isn't intelligent is a parrot, a packer... someone who doesn't know shit but is intelligent is clueless, and usually arrogant... now those who have both, intelligence and knowledge (aka wisdom) - are the ones you need to be afraid of...

It's always a fair balance between these and they are consequential of one another, but these 2 dimensions are never divided/split, and exist in everyone as a whole.

Re:Accuracy

[whovian]

The key to weight loss is increase in muscle mass (weightlifting) and excercise, and not so much how much food you eat.

But still, you won't lose "fat weight" if you overeat.

my muscles need to rebuild from the excersice, that energy has to come from somewhere, and if i restrict my diet, it has to come from my bodyfat.

Muscles cannot be synthesized from fatty acids, but only from protein. You probably meant that your energy is derived from body fat, and that's correct.

Atkins in a nutshell: The induction period causes you to burn off your glycogen ("carb") stores. Stored with that is a lot of water. So the initial drop is weight is largely water weight. Eventually your body will have to get its energy from protein and fats. Since you are eating few carbs, the body will scavenge whatever proteins it can find in order to metabolise fatty acids. The protein has to come from your diet or from your muscles, but since the Atkins diet is a high protein diet, the potential for lean muscle loss is lowered.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, though I'm sure if you asked people how long it takes the moon to go around the earth, you'd get everything from a day to a year. Heck, you'd probably get somebody saying it goes around the sun.

If the moon doesn't go around the sun how does it stay so close to the earth while it goes around the sun?

Re:Accuracy

[runamok1]

I agree with most of that.

I wonder how many people would run away screaming from the US if car bombs detonated near their walmart or starbucks a few times a month.

I do think that within 10 years someone might pop a nuke or spread a bio agent and kill thousands or tens of thousands or more people. As the technology to do so spreads to more and more countries I think it's inevitable that it will fall into the hands of someone that chooses to use it for ther own purpose.

On the other hand, I actually think the relative lack of someone downing airliners or derailing trains, etc. is actually proof that terrorists are splintered, poorly organized and not all that numerous OR they are not that willing to take lives randomly.

View the recent situation where a possibly deranged man left his car on the rails of a train in LA. 11 people died, 200 were injured and I'm sure that cost a few million bucks. How easy would it be for someone to steal a car, park it on the rails at night and disappear?

Basically you need very little time or money to do great damage. I think the point is not that many people really are willing to do it. Or they would be doing so.

Re:Accuracy

[dasunt]

No, the basis of Atkins is some handwaving about insulin. Basically, according to Atkins, you should limit the intake of carbohydrates to enter a state of ketosis and start burning stored fat.

I consider that the reasoning behind Atkins is medically unsound: All across Earth, there are plenty of cultures where a high intake of carbohydrates are considered the norm yet do not have a high incident of obesity, which seems to disprove his hyperinsulin theory.

My personal belief is that Atkins works the way that any other diet works: By restricting net calorie intake. With the restriction on carbs (including sugar), many high-calorie foods aren't available to Americans.

Losing wait isn't complicated: Energy in has to be less then energy out. High-fiber and low fat foods have less calories then high fat food and food without the additional bulk of fiber. (Yes, per unit of weight, fat has over twice the calories of carbohydrates and protein.) Everything being constant, more energy in is weight gain.

The other side of the equation is energy out: Inactive lifestyles use less energy.

PS: In the long run, the Atkin diet fares poorly in regards to keeping a healthy weight.

Re:Accuracy

[ikkonoishi]

Right...
Okay your points in order.

Dan Rather was given retirement. Most of the problems he had were because he would not publish a retraction even when faced with evidence of the problem until public opinion forced him to. Even after he published the retraction he continued to state that even though the memos were false that the story was true despite having no proof of this.

Four people do not constitute an entire news organization.

Haven't heard of Palast, but a Google web search shows him accusing Bush of lots of things, but doesn't show any "evidence" other than one difficult to read memo with a censor block on it. I can't say for sure that he is wrong, but I'm sure if he could back up his claim that CNN, the NYT, and everything else with the possible exception of Fox News would still be airing it every minute on the minute.

No one will take on Bush's people... except, you know, pretty much every Democrat in the public eye. Just look at Boxer and Kennedy's attacks on Rice. The only thing they had to suffer from was the public's reaction to their hysterical accusations.

As for the CIA front being nuked, I'm pretty sure that it was already compromised by the leak.

Your last sentence is completely out of the blue. Where the heck in all you mentioned above do corporate effects come into play? The only corporation you mentioned is CBS.

Re:Accuracy

[A coward on a mouse]

Evolution *is* an indisputable theory. Evolutionary processes have been directly observed in organisms with short enough generations to allow evolutionary change to be observed. You have apparently been hoodwinked by some fundamentalist pharisee who exploited your misunderstanding of the term "theory" as used in science. If you don't believe in evolution, you are a total idiot, in the sense that you are unaware of what is going on around you. Gravity is not a fact, it is a theory. Our current cosmology that has the earth as part of a solar system, which is part of a galaxy, that also is a theory. Saying that "intelligent design" or any other religiously inspired BS is a viable alternative to the "theory" of evolution is as laughably misguided as saying that the sun revolves around the earth.

Religion and science are entirely separate fields of enquiry; neither of them has anything useful to say about the other. While I suppose there may be idiotically anti-religion biased scientists out there who want to meddle in religion by saying things like they have scientific proof that God doesn't exist, the simple fact is that idiotic bias is overwhelmingly found among flat-earthers like yourself trying to mess with science. Until you can find deep enough faith to believe in your God without having to close your eyes to the world around you, you and anyone else who would have science education watered down with "evolution is not a fact" stickers and discussions of mumbo-jumbo fairytales like "intelligent design" will be rightly accused of idiotic anti-science bias.

A real indisputable fact is that "fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weakening of science and math education in schools". Any participation in the establishment of science and math curricula should be undertaken from the assumption that scientists know more about science than ministers do. Otherwise, why teach science at all? Arguing that evolution is not a sufficiently agreed-upon theory to be taught as the only viable explanation of genetic diversity requires weakening this assumption; no reputable scientist has stepped forward to challenge the basic premises of evolutionary theory. And don't get on about some wacko who says he has proofs against evolutionary theory; that person is not a reputable scientist as defined by the peer review process. The peer review process may not come to the conclusions that you like, and it may have flaws, but the peer review system is what governs science and if we are to throw out the peer review process, we may as well not teach science, because all of science's conclusions have been established through this process.

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

I'll leave it to the historians of a later age to figure out how much Reagan did. I don't think anybody can argue that he had some influence, but the collapse of the USSR was, so far as I can tell, a done deal long before Reagan came on the scene.

As you say, the historians will have the last word, but I think Reagan deserves credit for this one. The "Great Communicator" did a great job of spreading the word about a new missle defense system that was never really planned. Why inform your enemies of what you're really doing? There was some smoke and mirrors, and some known informants got some realistic documents. The USSR went into emergency defense spending mode, and the house of cards collapsed. I think his "Tear Down This Wall" speech was an offer to let the Soviet leadership save face. Russia may not be democratic, but neither are most of the rest of the old soviet block. The USSR is no more. Give this one to the Gipper.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Marx knew that there would have to be a period of dictatorship; the "dictatorship of the Proletariat." Of course, this lovely little open-ended concept was used by those implementing Communist states, and I suppose Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro still justify it; sort of a never ending revolution, so that anybody whose a threat to your power base is a threat to the revolution.

Exactly - that's why communism will always fail in its objectives. Marx was naive to think that a powerful state would willingly give up its power to phase in "true" communism. Bakunin, a comtemporary of his who shared many of his goals, predicted this outcome.

Re:Accuracy

[NoodleSlayer]

Aren't Norway, Sweden and Finland Socialist democracies?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Having elections doesn't make a country a democracy, I'm afraid, particularly when the state (through the organ of the Party) picks a single slate of candidates.

But here in the USA, we have two slates decided by two party organs. Better? Yes. A mockery of real democracy? Well...

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

all these findings can be attributed to a Divine creation and a world-wide flood (as accurately recorded in the Bible).

You have to be a troll. But what the heck:

Problems with a global flood:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs- ark.html

Flood Stories from Around the World:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myth s.html

And others:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-f lood.html

I actually find it humorous to watch so called "experts" in science change their theories of "pre-historic" events to suit every new finding that doesn't match with their previous theory.

That's the very definition of the Scientific Method:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

They don't want to believe there is absolute truth and an absolute morality which their lives must be measured against

And YOUR morality is the correct one, right?

And then there's the base question for all you evolutionists.... where did all the stuff that the universe is made of come from. No matter have far back you go... where did what that came from come from?

Where did god come from?

Re:Accuracy

[bleckywelcky]

While your statement may be true for the average or crappy teachers, it does not hold for the excellent teachers. And that is part of the problem with the system, you can't pay an excellent teacher more than a crappy teacher because the crappy teacher will complain (citing discrimination, blah blah blah, instead of their crappy performance). The excellent teachers (of which I had several in HS through taking College Prep and Advanced Placement classes) deserve more - at least in my school district, where salaries were pretty low already. And how much more they should be getting partially corresponds to how much less the crappy teachers should be getting.

Also, while the crappy teachers may be content to sit back and laze away during the summer, the other teachers are looking for ways to fill that 3 month gap in their work schedule. A career that doesn't use 25% of your life (and doesn't pay you for 25% of your life) isn't maximizing your earning potential. They recognize this and try to patch up that hole ... teach at the local CC, tutor over the summer, even resort to manual labor like painting houses or construction.

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

Hear, hear... I wish the Reagan mythology were known as such and not taken as fact. . . The facts are that the Soviet satellites were crumbling away DECADES before Reagan hit the White House

A house of cards can stand forever until someone knocks it down.

Re:Accuracy

[AK Marc]

As far as science, you are correct. Scientific theories should not be taught not as facts set in stone.

Why not? The Theory of Gravity is just a theory. Are you saying that students shouldn't be taught that gravity is a force that attracts all objects becuse it is only a Theory?

Re:Accuracy

[SteveSgt]

Significantly reduced funding with respect to inflation, leading to mediocrity in staffing and inadequate facilities. The tax cutting regime that started with Ronald Reagan in California has starved the schools of adequate funds to operate.

OK, that's a reasonable hypothesis. Let's see what the data says. This is a spreadsheet from the 2004 federal budget, showing total educational outlays from 1962 - 2004. The bottom line is the one you want to look at, showing that educational outlays have grown approx 8x in constant 1996 dollars during that time. They did decline under Reagan (as you note), but then grew again under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. So significantly reduced funding is probably not a cause of educational failure, and certainly not a cause from 1990-present.

That is interesting data, but to be meaningful for this discussion, it needs to be adjusted on a per-student basis -- and probably adjusted for LOCAL cost-of-living.

In our local high school, there aren't enough textbooks in most classes for students to be able to take them home to do homework! How are the students supposed to do any homework? The discovery of this left me astounded and speechless at first, and then angry.

Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

It's certainly true that fundamentalists want to change the teaching of evolution. I hadn't heard they were opposed to math - maybe you'll provide a link.

In my personal experience, as friends of a home-schooling teacher, Fundamentalist Christian parents discourage the kind of skeptical, evidence-based reasoning required to really understand mathematical logic and scientific reasoning. Some of these parents got together and scolded my friend for teaching their children to "disrespect higher authority", when all my friend suggested was that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

To date, they've had no notable success in doing so, and the Supreme Court has remained unsympathetic to arguments that teaching biological evolution infringes on 1st ammendment religious freedoms. So it's hard to see how this could be a cause of educational decline today, although maybe it could become one if the political & legal situation changes.

This poster reinforced my statement more eloquently that I can in the time given: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137903&cid=115 33930 [slashdot.org]

American schools have an entrenched bureaucracy and union structure that is powerful enough to block virtually any proposed reform, save that of pumping more money into the existing system. For example, in Washington State, our teachers' unions campaigned vigorously and successfully against our recent charter school referrendum.

I won't argue that none of that exists, though I can't say that I've seen it firsthand. I certainly would be in favor of some decentralization of school systems and encourage more local participation by parent and the community.

There are very few feedback mechanisms in the public school system, where a teacher's job performance determines his professional success, or where parents can choose to remove their students (and tax dollars) from a failing school. In most other professions, these feedback mechanisms are the way in which failing "firms" are reformed or replaced.

I think that parents are a vital part of that feedback system, if they can't be involved, then they need to elect a different school board! But to be in favor of f

Re:Accuracy

[quintessencesluglord]

And shall we do the same for you?

You state advantages of the without really listing what they are. Ultimately, it does not matter if the public school system is open to the scrutiny of the entire community if that community is unable realize their criticisms. Bureaucracy serves as a pretty effective flywheel of isolating the constituents concerns from powers that be. Private schools by far have to be responsive to community concerns since it is not a locked-in game.

From the metal detectors, drug sniffing dogs, cameras installed in the bathrooms, and censored books to censored speech; I think the public schools do a pretty damn effective job of disseminating their propaganda. The underlying message: you have no rights. You can't even choose to leave without attracting the attention of some truant officer. Sounds like a damn fine environment to promote understanding of the constitution.

On average, the public school system spends more per student than a private school. And that is with a lack of choice, little to no say in the curriculum, and students being treated like a government owned property. The benefits are where? The accountability is where?

Let me guess, you were taught at a public school. And if you had the funds to send your child to private school as opposed to a public school, where would you send them?

Get real. In the end, the poor performance public school system is just another manifestation of the corruption in government.

Perhaps when students do understand the first amendment, and, more importantly, have the opportunity to exercise that right, you might see change. But only a fool would expect that to be disseminated through their masters.

It's hard to see any student understanding the first amendment especially when they can't even use it.

Re:Accuracy

[Kiryat Malachi]

Many larger universities (roughly 40-100 of them, last estimate I saw, depending on how they do their books) do manage to self-fund (i.e. make profit for the university from) their sports, mainly through gate receipts, television, and merchandising deals. That's 4-10% of the schools with formal college athletics, by the way - the NCAA lists 1036 members.

The ones that don't make a profit, you can hardly call it a massive financial emphasis on sports when the athletics operating budget is generally minimal for these schools (extreme example: Washington University, which has an athletic budget of around 0.1% of its total operating budget). The average deficit, excluding institutional support (which is the stricter standard), is $1.75 million. This is dwarfed by the average university's operating budget. We're in the single digits here, percentage wise, even at the biggest losers.

Nationally, 1-3% of budget is a rough estimate for athletic costs in high schools. Which is not outrageous when you consider some of the ancillary benefits, like improved health, and it being a student activity. Again, hardly a "massive financial emphasis".

They may get massive media emphasis, but they hardly get massive financial emphasis.

Re:Accuracy

[TrancePhreak]

It's not that they are in Japanese... it's just that for every warning label we get, they have ten.

Re:Accuracy

[voisine]

If I were a student around the turn of the century studying newtonian physics, let's just say my name is, ohh... Einstein, I'd think I might be interested to know that the movement of the planet mercury around the sun is not adequately explained the existing theory of gravity. The theory of evolution doesn't even come close to being as air tight as your chosen example.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

err, there are still dictatorships in the world. Therefore: All dictatorships have NOT failed. Only the... failed ones have failed. Asshat.

You might as well say that all fallen countries have failed, or that the only successful marriage is one where one of the partners dies.

Re:Accuracy

[queef_latina]

Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.

And you never will be.

Re:Accuracy

[winwar]

"Unfortunately, that's not true anymore. We have 20 years to go of zero terrorist activity before terrorism and lightning become equal hazards on average."

Well, from 1959 to 2003, 3696 people were killed by lightning in the US. Exactly how many were killed by terrorism in that time? Oh, and we didn't have 20 years of zero terrorist activity.

Of course, while we can estimate risk of death from lightning strikes, the risk from terrorism is rather harder to determine. I would say you are overestimating the risk, which is common with things you appear to have no control over. But there are things you could do to reduce the risk-if you want to waste your time. Lightning strikes, like terrorism, are pretty much noise in the grand scheme of things (ways to die).

And just because we had a lot of deaths in one year attributed to terrorism does not necessarily change the risk. I would say a lot of things aren't taught in school...

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't."

And a good portion of Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Welcome to the stupidification of America, and it is now being done with popular consent. Perhaps the logic is that if your child is dumb enough and takes enough drugs, he may someday be elected president.

Re:Accuracy

[TheDormouse]

I attribute the decline in the U.S. primary education system to the following ills:

Don't forget:

1. (related to your #1) Teacher's salaries are so low that smart college students won't even consider majoring in education. Our children are, therefore, educated by the mediocre instead of the smartest Americans.

Conservatives in this country are well aware of the problems mentioned, but they do not want to fix them. If they are fixed, then it shows that public education works; conservatives want to convince everyone that public education doesn't work, so they can get rid of it. Once public education is abolished:

1. The poorest kids in the country will get stupider and poorer, since their parents won't be able to send them to school. Home schooling? Ha! I've met one set of parents in my life that were truly qualified to home-educate kids.
2. The religious kids will get weirder and wackier since they will go to parochial schools that won't teach proper science and the kids won't learn to deal with people with conflicting beliefs.
3. The rich will still be smart, since they can afford good schooling.
4. ?????
5. Revolution! ... I mean... Profit?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, "fat" doesn't go straight from fat in food to fat in body cells. It takes a roundabout path, and if that pathway is blocked or doesn't operate, then the fat doesn't get stored.

In which case it slides out your ass in a greasy splosh. Congratulations, you've discovered Olestra II: The Reckoning.

Re:Accuracy

[Goalie_Ca]

What do you mean? We were always at war with Eurasia ;P

Re:Accuracy

[vax]

then its kind of Amazing the CIA hasnt sent in some black-ops squad to support a dictator to overthrow it, after all the last thing America would do is let a legitimate and successful communist state exist (except for in the case of China where nukes are involved and we cant meddle like we do in the third world, I should probably note that China isnt a legitimate communist state anyway as its more a totalitarian dictatorship.. but then again who am I to judge? at least china openly admits they are tyrant ran, as opposed to our own tyrant who hides behind this farcial bullshit "democracy" in a capitalist REPUBLIC)

mod as you will, I know, the truth hurts.

Re:Accuracy

[dajak]

Clearly there was a point when, if unchecked, the Soviet Union could have ridden over a sizable chunk of Central and Western Europe. Certainly Allied thinkers in the immediate post-WWII days were quite concerned about this, and there was something of a movement to attack the Soviet divisions in Eastern Europe and drive them back. Of course, this WWIII scenario was never to be.

Sure. It was immediately at the end of WWII. There was a US/British presence small compared to the Red Army, Germany had capitulated, and ill armed western European 'resistance forces' counted as a few light infantry divisions at best. Europe was a walkover, but the Soviets did not act.

In less than a decade western Europe was armed to the teeth. The red menace was gone and only the rhetoric remained. And the US army and nuclear weapons of course.

An example of how seriously the generation of my grandparents really took the 'red menace': they sent a large part of the army to the Dutch East Indies to reoccupy it.

Re:Accuracy

[RichardX]

All three episodes are avaliable on Lokitorrent

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

A Democracy is mob rule

And that's bad because....

Yeah, three wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. I've heard it. Except we're not wolves and sheep, we're all a very advanced species of primates with mutual survival interests. The wolf doesn't need the sheep, but we need each other - technology has taken us to the point where war threatens the extinction of the species.

Re:Accuracy

[imroy]

...someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense.

Heh, reminds me of a Billy Connolly recording I have, where he expresses his dismay at finding a "do not use in the shower" warning label on a hairdryer in a hotel room. My god, anyone stupid enough to do something like that deserves whatever happens to them!

Re:Accuracy

[AK Marc]

If I were a student around the turn of the century studying newtonian physics, let's just say my name is, ohh... Einstein, I'd think I might be interested to know that the movement of the planet mercury around the sun is not adequately explained the existing theory of gravity.

And you claimed the equivelent of not teaching gravity because it is only a theory. How would Einstein have learned newtonian physics if it were banned?

The theory of evolution doesn't even come close to being as air tight as your chosen example.

Ah, here is what you really want banned, but you are quite willing to throw out gravity and other science in order to stop the one theory you don't like. You are just proving the point that ignorant religious zealots are purposefully dumbing down science to push their personal agendas at the expense of our children.

Re:Accuracy

[EvanED]

"Others say that communism fell because no one wanted to wear Bulgarian shoes"

And the Bulgarian shoe market collapsed, and the inhabitants of that poor country evolved into birds, flying high above the layers and layers of rubber on the surface. /Obscure?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

1. If that's the case, then why do private schools consistently outscore public schools in almost every way, but most of the teachers have lesser salaries and are rarely unionized.
2. The kids should be doing their homewokr. Parents helping is not a requirement. After all, do you seriously think the average family is gonna be able to help a kid with their calculus or chemistry homework? Most barely remember taking those courses, and what they remember is most likely spotty and/or outdated.
3. Although this is true, it's mostly because the teachers don't make math and science interesting. Reading a book is usually more interesting than adding numbers after all. I hated biology all through school until I took a course in high school from a chemical perspective. Understanding HOW something works is usually alot more interesting than memorizing the fact that it does.

Re:Accuracy

[voisine]

I see you're just an uninformed troll, but I'll try to help you out anyway so you don't emberrase yourself like this again.

Go re-read my original post again. I don't recall ever making the suggestion that any prevalant theory shouldn't be taught just because there are anomolies that aren't fully explained by it. I said that these anomolies should be presented to the students so they can understand that it's a theory and not a fact and that it might even be wrong.

Re:Accuracy

[handslikesnakes]

It's mostly related to Creationism, but it doesn't all have to do with evolution. Fundamentalists aren't very fond of geology (the Flood), nuclear physics (carbon dating), etc.

Oh, and logic. They HATE logic.

Re:Accuracy

[magarity]

I often wonder whether or not a country with a communist economy would survive better if it were lead be a democratically elected body.

Vote for your local communist party! We will take away your private property and declare it all owned by the state (ie: us politicians in said communist party for whom we want you to voluntarily vote)!

And you wonder why no one ever votes in the communists on purpose? A country has to have *serious* problems including a huge GINI index before the idea of taking away all the private property starts to look good.

Re:Accuracy

[b-baggins]

No, more than 50,000 people have died as a result of Sadaam playing his bluff.

I'm sure the Iraqi also mourn their dead. But they also dance in the streets, giving people like you their ink-dyed finger of freedom.

So, tell me. Would you walk to a polling place shouting "We are not afraid!" or would you whine because you had to stand in line for four hours in Ohio?

John Stuart Mill's described people like you.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Iraqi soldiers and police stood side by side with American forces and helped 8 million people across that nation go to the polls for the first time in 50 years. Terrorist thugs tried to stop it by sending children with Downs Syndrome into polling places with bombs strapped to their bodies, and pathetic, miserable shrivelled up people like you wrap themselves in the rotting rags of warped moral self-importance and say that America is the villain.

Disgusting.

Re:Accuracy

[b-baggins]

And 4N people aren't because Saddam is out of power. Ergo, the US saved 4N lives by invading. Therfore, by your own criteria you must now support the US invasion.

Of course, since your position has nothing to do with reason, and everything to do with hatred for Republicans and George Bush, you'll find some other example of cognitive dissonance to embrace and keep your hatred alive and well-fed.

Re:Accuracy

[tanveer1979]

Terrorism is a real threat now

Huh? Don't overrate terrorism to much dude. Here in India its been around since independence. It sucks but what sucks more is having to give your freedoms away. The funny part is directly or indirectly most of the terrorist organizations are funded by US, via money or arms! :D. Its a big big business for you guys. Your economy will lose lots of money if terrorism vanishes.

Of course most of the funding is through not so legal channels(LTTE/Phillipines etc.,) and a lot through legal channels.

Re:Accuracy

[CaptainCarrot]

Thank you!

Lord, I get tired of the spineless panic-mongering around here. We are not unique, and other countries have been dealing with this kind of thing for a long time. For crying out loud, get a grip!

Re:Accuracy

[BorgCopyeditor]

It begs the question of whether or not communist countries failed because they had a communist economy, or because they were a dictatorship.

I think you're missing the point. Where there have been democratic (i.e., non-dictatorial) communist regimes, we in the U.S. and Europe have made sure they were put down quickly. So, if it "begs" any question, it's this: what is so scary about some tiny country having a communist economy, that we feel we have to destroy it and proclaim all forms of communism to be totalitarian?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a loon.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you support anti-globalism or free speech and rights for "suspected" terrorists then you are supporting the terrorist regime. The Muslim fanatics are trying to kill every one of us, because they are jealous of, and hate our freedom. If your parents or spouse or friends support Islam, then you are guilty of supporting the evil empire by not informing the republican party and department of Homeland Defense. If you aren't one of us, then you are part of the cancer that is infecting our nation. Those damn, evil, godless terrorists are trying to kill us all....

But unlike the communists who just wanted political control, the terrorists literally do want to kill us all, and do do things like stamp on babies' heads (ala Beslan), and they do hate political freedoms because the base of Islamic belief is about the surrendering of freedoms to religion. I see alot of people (usually leftists) thinking others' carrying on about Islamic radicalism is just a beat-up and scare-mongering, but it really is as far out as it is made out to be.

Re:Accuracy

[emptor]

The purpose of a union is to make money for its officers.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

How come your door has not been kicked down by the bush gastapo? You have no more privacy, no more free speech! We are on our way now to break in to your house and confiscate all your kiddy porn and sex toys and lock you up with out an ACLU lawya! We will also take away your right to be a racist left wing lib like Babra Boxsa.

Re:Accuracy

[Theaetetus]

I consider that the reasoning behind Atkins is medically unsound: All across Earth, there are plenty of cultures where a high intake of carbohydrates are considered the norm yet do not have a high incident of obesity, which seems to disprove his hyperinsulin theory.

Fortunately, most medical and scientific researchers do not hold your preference for deciding medical and scientific judgements based on "well, all across Earth, there are exceptions to this theory". Honestly, rather than looking into the physiology or the chemistry behind Atkins and other low-carb diets, you decide it's "medically unsound" because Japanese people eat a lot of rice? Are you a statistician, by any chance?

My personal belief is that Atkins works the way that any other diet works: By restricting net calorie intake.

... and this belief is based on what? Have you read the book, or any of the multiple independant studies about what goes on in the body in low-carb diets?

I thought not.

Losing wait isn't complicated: Energy in has to be less then energy out. High-fiber and low fat foods have less calories then high fat food and food without the additional bulk of fiber. (Yes, per unit of weight, fat has over twice the calories of carbohydrates and protein.) Everything being constant, more energy in is weight gain.

Really? Take two people - have them consume exactly identical calorie levels and expend the exact same amount of energy. Even have them start with indentical body fat and muscle levels. However, have one's intake made up completely of fat, and the other's intake made up completely of protein (yes, twice as much by gram weight). The one taking in fat will lose muscle mass much faster than the one taking in protein. In fact, even with no more expense of caloric energy than they take in, the one eating no protein will lose muscle mass (and weight!) and gain body fat by percentage.
You're severely missing the science, friend, and just going by 'common wisdom'. And you know what the error in that is:

PS: In the long run, the Atkin diet fares poorly in regards to keeping a healthy weight.

Published just over three weeks ago:
"A team of researchers from the Tufts-New England Medical Centre in Boston carried out a study to find out the best diet to reduce weight. Is it the Atkins, or Ornish, the Weight Watchers or Zone? They say none.
"... It has revealed few interesting things. It says that all the diets were somewhat equally effective if people really followed them properly."

So, in the long run, the Atkins diet fares equally well with the Ornish diet (low-fat), Weight-watchers (calorie counting), and the Zone diet (food-pyramid based).

-T

Re:Accuracy

[Jeremi]

Wow, that really got your goat, didn't it? Truly you are brave to sacrifice other peoples' lives so willingly.

No, more than 50,000 people have died as a result of Sadaam playing his bluff.

You can point the finger anywhere you want, but it is still American bombs and bullets that did the killing. Blaming someone else for your own actions is a cheap dodge.

people like you wrap themselves in the rotting rags of warped moral self-importance and say that America is the villain

"People like me" would like to see some accountability. When Sudan massacres tens of thousands, it's an outrage. When the US does it, it's somehow considered noble.

The fact that you are so quick to throw insults suggests a deep denial on your part -- you are psychologically unable to take responsibility for those deaths because that would force you to see your country for what it truly is: just another empire that acts according to its own strategic interests, and then tries justify its actions as humanitarian after the fact.

Re:Accuracy

[IdleTime]

Do you have any scientific foundation for your claims in relation to evolution? And I mean something that can hold up under scrutiny, peer review etc?

All the crap ( and I call it crap because that covers it very accurate) has been founded on religious basis and do not stand up to scurtiny at all. Not one single iota of the socalled "evidence" against evolution. It is also a huge surprise to me as a non-American that it is an issue at all in this country. Before I moved to USA in 90's I had never heard that it was an issue. As far as I know, there is no other 1st world country at least, where this is even an issue.

Re:Accuracy

[ikkonoishi]

Good catch. :)
And it actually supports my post more.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt a full blown nuclear war would wipe out life on earth. Consider the number of above ground nuclear tests that have been performed. Now multiply that by a hundred or a thousand to get the total megatons worth of stockpile. Just how much land was actually destroyed by nuclear testing? Even if you blanketed the land masses with nukes so that they are all evenly spaced, you would make a tiny dent in the total hapitable landmass, and the pollution in the air would only equal a few thousand times what was previously released. Sure, it would be bad, but it would in no way end the world, or even any (large) country. That lie was fostered just to keep MAD working. If everyone didn't believe that nukes would destroy the whole world, they would be used a lot more often.

Re:Accuracy

[dtperik]

Sorry, but that is not what I meant. I don't laugh when "new evidence is brought to light". I laugh that the cherished theory of the day (which excludes an Intelligent Designer) is exchanged for the new cherished theory of the day. First it was a metorite. Then it was a global warming theory. And on and on.

I can heartily agree with a part of the thinking in the statement:

There's almost never any guarantee that what we currently know is right.

When you approach this world from a purely naturalistic world view, there is no guarantee of all-surpassing knowledge. But if you come to the realization that this universe could only have come to be through an Intelligent Designer, then you realize there is One who does know what is right. And if this is so, all we discover should be coherent with this world view.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives in this country are well aware of the problems mentioned, but they do not want to fix them. If they are fixed, then it shows that public education works; conservatives want to convince everyone that public education doesn't work, so they can get rid of it. Once public education is abolished:

1. The poorest kids in the country will get stupider and poorer, since their parents won't be able to send them to school. Home schooling? Ha! I've met one set of parents in my life that were truly qualified to home-educate kids.

Oh the dripping irony. Stupider. Anyways, I think the poor and uneducated in this country are doing a damn fine job of keeping themselves poor and uneducated without any help from democrats or conservatives. Just watch the mentality in impoverished areas where education is either 1) shunned/looked down upon and being intelligent is considered weakness or 2) Unnecessary since your parents didn't have it and what they do should be good enough for you, too.

In a more politically motivated response, I don't know of any republicans actively trying to abolish public education. I do know many who agree the system is horribly broken, and simply throwing money at it as we have here in California wont fix all the problems.

2. The religious kids will get weirder and wackier since they will go to parochial schools that won't teach proper science and the kids won't learn to deal with people with conflicting beliefs.

You'd be correct if these schools were preaching intolerance and fundamentalism. Luckily they don't. Infact, since they preach tolerance and acceptance I'd say they're surprisingly compassionate and tolerant, for Americans.

The fact of the matter is, republicans don't need to convince anyone that the education system is broken because it's blatently obvious that it is. In fact, the only difference between republicans and democrats on this issue is that republicans are past the notion that throwing more money at the problem will somehow make it better. Teachers would love for you to believe that money will fix everything, but when, say, a quarter of your student body can't speak let alone read and write english, no realistic quantity of money is going to fix the problem.

(related to your #1) Teacher's salaries are so low that smart college students won't even consider majoring in education. Our children are, therefore, educated by the mediocre instead of the smartest Americans.

Last time I checked, you don't major in education to teach. You major in a field, then go on to obtain your teaching credentials. Salaries aren't that bad - some of the fools at my school majoring in "communication" are likely to get mediocre at best salaries; they'd probably be better off (financially) teaching. I'd say the problem is a combination of teachers not being paid enough and people having absolutely no motivation to teach. And can you blame them? Some communities are truly atrocious to teach at. Why would I go to a university for 4+ years, go (tens of?) thousands of dollars into debt, and then teach where I'm unappreciated and hated, and possibly (more like probably) putting myself and my family into harms way?

Re:Accuracy

[Kiryat Malachi]

What if the interviewer said "What is the answer?" and didn't accept "I don't know", just said "Well, make a guess!"

Are they still stupid, or just ignorant?

Being that you lack any specific knowledge of the interview process, and yet speak about it, I'm going to bet that while the interviewees may or may not be stupid, you've pretty much proven you are.

Re:Accuracy

[dtperik]

Where did "God" come from?

This philosophical dilemma is the same whether you believe in any kind of divinity or not. Any time you imagine a Beginning--whether it's God or The Big Bang (or a combination of both!)--you have to ask yourself "But what came before that?" God is no more or less exempt from that question than The Big Bang is.

And that is exactly my point. No matter what, it comes to down to a belief system. And, let me tell you again, I am all for the study of open-minded science. But to say that the study of the world around us (science) must exclude the possibility of a Intelligent Designer (a belief system), and then ignore, as you so accurately stated, that in the end, you can't explain everything and your theories end up resting on some belief system, this is what I would call not open-minded. I'm all for teaching various theories in school for how things came to be. But I'm not for excluding a theory (one which I happen to hold) which includes Intelligent Design, just because it includes something you don't happen to believe.

Re:Accuracy

[Will_Malverson]

...[T]he patriot act has a chilling effect on the freedom to read by state enquiry into reading...

Yawn. If you don't want the government to know what books you're reading, don't walk into government-owned buildings and borrow them from government employees.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I put together a proposal to invade Ann Coutler, but no-one listened.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You "winging poms" should keep your mouths shut and your "tallywhackers" in your pants.

Let's see:

Pakistan vs. India (British)
China vs. Hong Kong (British)
Iraq vs. Iran (British)
Israel vs. Palestine (British)
India vs. Britain (British)
Soth Africa vs. Britain (British)
-- and --
let's not forget ...
Ireland vs. Britain (British)

Yes, I've left out a lot, but for those imperialists shitting on world geography, at least the Brits should have the class to not point fingers.

To reprhase, "Terroism is only an issue if you [create it and point the finger at someone else]"

Crawl back into your hole you Limey fuck! And I hate to be redundant, but if it weren't for us yanks, you'd be eating dorschleber instead of kidney pie, you dumb ass!

FWIW, I do like English, English breakfast tea, but vegamite is hard to swallow :)

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Fire the teachers whose students don't learn anything over the course of 1 year. In order to do this, you have to test each and every student each year. FIRE THEM ALL if you have to.

The correct place for the responsibility of learning is with the student, not the teacher. If you want improved education, then convince students that this is true. If they truly believe this then they will not tolerate incompetant teachers, or allow them to impede their education.

Re:Accuracy

[gordo3000]

just wondering where you think the state education board comes from? and actually, they are most controlled by local education boards, which means the community has a huge impact on it. Anyways, if this couldn't be done, we wouldn't have the problem of fundamental religious people wanting things that aren't science(ie. religious beliefs) taught in class and succeeding. My school system didn't teach evolution in biology class because my community didn't like its results(which in no way mean there isn't a god, only that certain religions might have some falsehoods in them).

further, if a parent wanted, they could take the same action, put there kid in private school.

there is absolutely no proof that private school provide a superior education with less. What is certain is that private schools maximize efficiency. education is a private good and so the private markets can always come up with the most efficient solution. If you are referring to higher scores generated by private schools, this is usually a factor of the greater affluence of the average person who goes to private school. Those same people do better in public schools than the public school average.

Of course, a lot of you might take case with me saying that education can be provided efficiently by the private markets so just to put you at ease, it wouldn't be equitable as people have come to understand it. There isn't a basic minimum that everyone would recieve, people would recieve what they are willing to pay for, which could mean elementary or almost nothing for the very poor and business as usual for the wealthy. This isn't an efficiency problem, everyone is doing exactly what they would given basic constraints and their tastes and preferences. If you really want a proof, I direct you to Public Finance, ed. 7, by Harvey S. Rosen, starting at pg. 70.

Re:Accuracy

[servognome]

No, he was just fired, his staff canned, the entire news organization replaced with more Bush-friendly types
Wow I can't believe they fired him yet he's still on the air. Did somebody forget to tell him?
They fired the people's whose job was oversight, the producers, a producers chief aid, and a VP.
NO ONE will take on on Bush's people, else they get the Wilson/Rather treatment
The press isn't afraid to take on the president. I'm sure most of them would love to, as it would cement them in history. But they do need to be armed with something more concrete than questionable documents. It's not like these are "he said-she said" type questions, its fundamental problems with the evidence; unused typefaces, rarely used character proportions, wrong report format (if you think that scene in office space is bad, the military is worse about that kind of stuff).
Who needs government censorship when corporate censorship works so much better?
Yes, because I'm sure CBS would love to be considered tabloid news. You know the stuff people don't take seriously because most of it is false, or at best questionable in credibility. Credibility is everything in news. After the embarassment of 2000, just look at how cautious the networks were in something as trivial as calling the winner of the election in 2004.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

then its kind of Amazing the CIA hasnt sent in some black-ops squad to support a dictator to overthrow it, after all the last thing America would do is let a legitimate and successful communist state exist

It's only a state in India, not the entire country. There's a big difference...

Re:Accuracy

[CaptainAvatar]

I don't know about you, but I can still remember the last years of the Cold War, and contrary to what you are saying, the USSR was feared. The Warsaw Pact was still a massive military threat to NATO up until the late 1980s. Here's a quote from a 1985 US Marine Corps staff college report: NATO's conventional inferiority has been an accepted fact for some time now.

While there never was a missile gap, there was always a big conventional forces gap. Maybe (probably?) the higher technology of the West would have overcome the numerical advantages of the Soviets - but that didn't work too well for the Nazis. Just because the Dutch tried to cling onto their empire after WWII hardly disproves that there was a Soviet threat. In fact, given the fears that Indonesia might become Communist, Dutch actions there might even have been conceived as part of the same struggle - that's just supposition on my part though.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

No one will take on Bush's people... except, you know, pretty much every Democrat in the public eye. Just look at Boxer and Kennedy's attacks on Rice.

So a couple of Democrats spoke up - and most of them just voted for her. Yeah, that's "taking on his people" all right...

Re:Accuracy

[zxnos]

it is my understanding that a neo-conservative is someone who used to be on the left and has moved towards conservatism. google it and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(Unit ed_States)

Re:Accuracy

[voisine]

Well, if you're genuinely interested in learning about it, this wikipedia article isn't a bad place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_creationis ts _and_mainstream_scientists_compared

Re:Accuracy

[miskatonic alumnus]

Absolutely!!! I am a teacher, and I make wayyyy too much. I'm going to go demand a reduction in my pay. The only people who should earn megabucks are businessmen. After all, they sell shit, while teachers only educate the next generation.

Re:Accuracy

[handslikesnakes]

Right beside the preview button:

Extrans (html tags to text)

(Badly named.)

Re:Accuracy

[voisine]

I don't know a whole lot about public school beuracracy, just anecdotal stories of good teachers that were forced to abandon their methods and conform to the board's wishes. Perhaps these boards I'm thinking of are at the district level. I do know that text books are chosen by the state and the teachers using them have no say in their selection whatsoever.

As far as inequitable education distribution, you're completely ignoring private charity which I gaurantee will be there if the state stops funding schools and gives citizens their money back. Also there are whole new ways of providing education opening up. You could provide someone a decent education with a $300 computer and a modem if you wanted to invest in getting the materials on-line and hire a few teachers to answer questions via email or im. I'm just saying the market is more resourceful than you or I could possibly think up on our own.

Re:Accuracy

[thehomeland]

America is a paper dictatorship (the constitution), and will eventually fail also.

Re:Accuracy

[MoriaOrc]

Not only do you get an extra stripe, you get an extra letter to go with it ;)

Re:Accuracy

[ATHF_Fan]

"No, he was just fired, his staff canned, the entire news organization replaced with more Bush-friendly types."

How in the world does stuff like this get modded up? Checking CBS's website, he still works for them (until his announced retirement in March). So fired? No. The entire news organization replaced? That ridiculous statement doesn't even need to be rebutted, obviously the hundreds (thousands?) of employees at CBS News weren't replaced over this. I'm not going to stand up for Bush on your other points, but the comments about Rather is overblown. He wasn't running an Op-Ed piece - this was an investigative report, published on a well-respected news program. His group chose to not fully examine the evidence, knowing full well that it would come under extreme scrutiny. They failed to perform the due diligence something of this magnitued required. Are you really going to defend them for failing to adequately do their jobs?

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The chick with the wart on her chin,
The chick from Mannaquin (sp?)
The hot dark haired one
And the one with short red hair

Do I get a prize?

Re:Accuracy

[Pantero Blanco]

"So far all dictatorships have failed."

That's not quite true...Spain was under a dictatorship (in fact, one that arose with the help of Nazi Germany in the 30s) for most of the 20th century, and it worked quite well. The son of the former ruler began moving the nation towards the democracy they are today. Basically, it requires a leader that has enough sense not to piss off the world (which most dictators don't).

Also, Cuba's economy under Castro has probably suffered more direct damage from the embargo than from the fact that it's ruled by a dictator.

I don't support dictators or tyrants, of course, I'm just pointing out that they really CAN "make the trains run on time".

Re:Accuracy

[Skim123]

Get rid of the public schools and you will see a more abused and ill-educated populace than we've had in this country for over a century. Unless of course we all forget about those people who are working at McDonald's and Walmart and can't afford to send their kids to private schools since they don't really matter anyway

The reason private schools are so expensive today is because there are free alternatives that get major funding. For example, imagine that the government gave away cheap food items to any citizen who wanted it - simple sandwhiches, fruit, chips, cookies, etc. Do you think places like McDonalds and Subway would exist? No. The only restaurants that would exist would be ones that offerred food items that were not given away freely - expensive delicacies, ethnic cuisine, etc.

My point, arriving at it kind of backwards, is that if you eliminate free education, a variety of private school offerrings would popup, just like there are a wide variety of restaraunts. There would continue to be top-dollar private schools, sure, but there would also be a smattering of very affordable schooling options. I guarantee it -- capitalism works.

Now, those cheaper schools are likely going to be of much lower quality than the expensive ones - worse buildings/supplies, less skilled teachers, overcrowded rooms, etc. - but to assume that no option would exist if public schools went by the wayside is to not understand or appreciate the beauty that is the free market.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

While there's some truth in that, keep in mind that it's a parent's job to educate a child in certain aspects of life. It was decided when the Constitution was being framed up that religion would have no place in anything that was paid for with tax money, so the responsibility of maintaining a religion falls onto the parent's shoulders, not the government. Parents should spend more time with their kids, teaching them what they feel is important. Litigation regulates what the government can and cannot teach, but parents have no regulations, which is a good thing. Let's get some parents for the next generation that can try parenting.

Re:Accuracy

[Skim123]

Communism had many, many real threats that did come to pass, albeit indirectly. Some examples:

• Vietnam - granted, this wasn't war with Russia, but the North Vietnamese were getting funding/supplies from Communist countries, and the whole motivation for US involvement was to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia.
• Korea - again, not a battle with Russia, per se, but we did fight the Chinese briefly, when they poured into North Korea. For cripes sake, McArthur wanted to nuke China and take the war further than the Korean borders. Also, North Korea was receiving funding from Communist nations to help with their war effort.
• The Eastern Europe Bloc - as Churchill said, there was an iron curtain established, separating East and West Europe between the democracies and Communists.

There were also psychological threats that very nearly came to be... think the Cuban Missle Crisis. I'd say that single event brought us much more close to nuclear devestation than any terrorist has yet. Much closer. There's a great biography film staring Robert Mcnamara and he talks about just how close we came to annihiliation with the missle crisis - The Fog of War - definitely worth checking out sometime....

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Vegamite"? Isn't vegemite Australian? BTW - the US only entered WWII late '41 and did alright economically out of the whole deal - which is the point of conflict, right? To the victors go the spoils of war, but more importantly, particularly for americans, the right to re-write history and cast yourself always as pure in heart (and yet dropping two big nukes on civilians in '45 despite the fact that the war was all but won was inexcusably barbaric).

Re:Accuracy

[Alex Belits]

"We will bury you" is a horrible mistranslation.

The original phrase, as Khruschev said it, was "We will show you Kuzka's mother", what in Russian is a mildly rude version of "We will show you!", and definietly was meant to be applied to competition in economy. At the same time, same Khrushchev promoted a slogan "Catch up and Overtake the US", that was also used, in an abbreviated form, as trademark used for some industrial equipment.

Admitting that there is a lot of "catching up" to do was pretty far from arrogance and aggressiveness that US propaganda attributed to Communists in 60's-80's.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I laugh that the cherished theory of the day (which excludes an Intelligent Designer) is exchanged for the new cherished theory of the day.

No scientific theories exclude an intelligent designer. You can have an intelligent designer producing the laws of physics, or interfering with evolution. However, there is no scientific theory of intelligent design, nor evidence for it.

Anyway, you continue to show a basic misunderstanding of science and scientists. You seem to think that scientists adhere to a theory as if it was inviolate, and then go "oops, I guess it wasn't so inviolate after all". Scientists recognize that theories are provisional.

When you approach this world from a purely naturalistic world view, there is no guarantee of all-surpassing knowledge.

So?

And, for that matter, there is no guarantee of all-surpassing knowledge if you approach the world from a supernaturalistic viewpoint, unless you simply assume that there is an omniscient entity. Of course, there is no evidence of this, nor can there be. (How can you prove something is omniscient, even if you could prove it existed?)

then you realize there is One who does know what is right

This is another assumption -- even if you subscribe to an omniscient deity, omniscience itself does not imply the existence of Absolute Right. (Perhaps an omniscient being knows, being omniscient, that no Absolute Right is possible.)

And if this is so, all we discover should be coherent with this world view.

If so, then yes. But Christians can't even be coherent with each other on what God's world view is.

Re:Accuracy

[Skim123]

The only thing that ever worked is excercise and consuming less energy than the body can burn

Well, duh. It's sad that people don't embrace this nearly as often as they do the latest dieting fad. Personally I think it's healthier to exercise and eat poorly than eat well but not exercise at all. (I have no medical basis in that, just my take on the matter... of course, the best option is to both exercise and eat well!)

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

Except that the Soviet Union had had major economic problems for at least a decade before Reagan came on the scene. He can't be credited for years of mismanagement and stagnation that happened before he even got into the White House.

I'm not arguing that Reagan had an effect, but to not credit (not quite the proper word, of course) the incompetence of Brezhnev's running of the USSR is really only to tell half the story or less.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

But to say that the study of the world around us (science) must exclude the possibility of a Intelligent Designer (a belief system), and then ignore, as you so accurately stated, that in the end, you can't explain everything and your theories end up resting on some belief system, this is what I would call not open-minded.

Science doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of an intelligent designer. It merely requires scientific evidence of it. Personal revelation or scripture don't count.

But I'm not for excluding a theory (one which I happen to hold) which includes Intelligent Design, just because it includes something you don't happen to believe.

If there was a scientific or secular theory of intelligent design, then we could teach it in school. But there isn't. I mean, what would it consist of? "Here is our scientific understanding of the evolution of life, of the development of the universe, etc. ... oh, by the way, some kind of supernatural being could potentially have had something to do with it, but we don't have any evidence of it."

Re:Accuracy

[Lightning Hopkins]

just look at how cautious the networks were in something as trivial as calling the winner of the election in 2004.

Uh.... "Trivial"?

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

So far as I am aware, there is nothing to stop third or fourth parties running, though I'll freely admit there are serious issues with access to the masses (not that I'm defending anything that arrogant twerp Nader tried to pull). However, the US system, for all its flaws, can hardly be judged against a single-candidate slate in the joke elections practiced by certain countries.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

owned by the state

What is the "state" anyway ? Does the state exist without the "people" ? By the way, public roads are owned by the "state" too and everybody gets to use them. You want every road to be private, then you won't be able to get out of your house and go to work.

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

I have little doubt that in the long run the Allied Powers could have beaten the Soviets, just as they beat the Nazis. The problem isn't beating another power, but the costs involved. If it's going to take half a decade of brutal war that's going to kill millions of soldiers and civilians, see the potential use of A-bombs to wipe out cities and irradiate agricultural centers, then clearly it isn't going to happen unless the benefits are enormous. The benefits simply weren't that enormous, so instead, the world was cut in twain and the war was fought through proxies, leading to attrocities on a smaller, but no less heartwrenching scale.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering all the Star Trek nuts on here, it's probably a bad idea to suggest that.

AFAIK they banned religion.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. People in India and Asia are already kicking our butts on the math and science front (jobs, etc). Have you taken a look at the people doing the science and math jobs in your company lately? Once the evangelicals dumb down our schools even further and turn the majority of our kids into full-on superstitious morons we will cease to be the most powerful nation on the Earth. The people who respected science and logic will be the most powerful - problem solved. We will get our dangerous toys taken away from us. You know: there seems to be something about this ying/yang, balance, every action has a equal and opposite reaction thing after all..

Re:Accuracy

[TheLittleJetson]

Gosh, I thought I was pretty clear in my post but I've got 2 people contradicting me with exactly what I'm trying to express.

The difference is that terrorism is hardly a significant threat.

The Soviet threat started out pretty insignifigant. They didn't set out with the goal of being able to destroy all life, it just ended up that way. From the start (right after WW2), they were painted as the source of all evil in the world and that simply wasn't true. This lie prompted the arms race which led to the serious threat. Who knows, maybe Bush's rhetoric will create a similar problem in the middle east (if several nuclear-capable powers in the region went against us).

The Bush administration would like to make the case that terrorism is the gravest threat the US has ever faced, but it simply isn't.

I went on to say this in my post, but I'll elaborate: Of course terrorism is exaggerated. The neoconservative machine has a lot more momentum because of it. The whole point of neoconservatism is to keep society in order by uniting them against a common enemy. If you have to lie to the public to keep them in line, you do. People are unlikely to have disturbances amongst themselves if they both hate the same enemy.

All politicians fall short of delivering their ideals. Promising a lot is no longer a way to get a lot of power. Promising to protect people from an enemy, is.

So, when you ask: "Why are Republicans so willing to sacrifice everything that is great about this country for the illusion of security?", the answer is: POWER, AND LOTS OF IT! Do you really think Bush would have been re-elected without the war on terror? His domestic record is horrible. It's only because people think he will protect them from "evil-doers" that this horrid first-term was excused.

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

I think Marx misjudged the human capacity for greed; the greed of originally well-meaning rulers who won't give up their power and of the workers, who indeed could be calmed by bread and circuses. The industrialized nations did not topple in worker uprisings, and those nations who did become Communist did not follow the masterplan through. Marxism suffered that fate because of Marx's apparent idealism.

Re:Accuracy

[wolrahnaes]

Yes, but you forget communism would collectivise this private property, meaning we would all be able to look at everyone's Playboy collections! :}

and with this simple statement, all the world's perverts instantly started supporting communism

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that the only subjects that are really quantifiable are math and science classes, and those aren't the ones that I see the biggest problems in.

Language/grammar is a quantifiable subject, and it seems to be one of the biggest problem areas.

Re:Accuracy

[TheLittleJetson]

That is why [Bush] gets support and [Evangelical Christians] took over the Republician party.

History will show that it's the other way around: in the 1980's, the republican party (under neoconservative control) took over the evangelical vote. All they have to do is adopt some token moral issues (abortion, gay marriage) and they've instantly got all the Bible thumpers voting for them, despite their other dispicable behavior (war mongering, etc.). Pardon the cliche, but it's like taking candy from a baby.

But to re-iterate, the Republicans are not controlled by the evangelicals. The Republicans merely use them as a means to get power, and proceed with carrying out their own agenda.

Re:Accuracy

[CaptainAvatar]

I agree for the most part - but wars can start without anybody quite intending them to, or at least really wanting to. A Third World War nearly did happen this way, at a couple of points (over Berlin, Cuba). Certainly a recognition of the massive costs involved in a war helped restrain both sides at such times, but it's easy to imagine less happy outcomes.

Re:Accuracy

[paganizer]

Thank you for that ringing endorsement of my political views.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, as long as we're throwing out religions with sacred texts that promote hatred and intolerantly condemn those of all other religions, why stop at Islam? Might as well get rid of Judaism and Christianity too.

Actually I fully support this. The human race as a whole is going to remain doomed until we evolve beyond magical men in the sky and other fairy stories.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists can be some of the most arrogant assholes out there, and have been throughout history.
And that proves the superiority of what over science ? There's politics everywhere including your house's kitchen. That does not remove the basic worthiness of science as a stream of knowledge gained thru active investigation, criticism, and validation. NOT blind dumbass faith (religious or not).

Re:Accuracy

[Kiryat Malachi]

To paraphrase the West Wing - public schools *should* be expensive, just like defense. There are certain things where we shouldn't be willing to let the market decide, where we simply say "We want the best, and we're willing to pay for it." We shouldn't skimp on education, any more than we should skimp on defending our country.

And the truth is, how many people, if education weren't mandatory, would simply choose not to, or be unable to, pay? You can argue options would exist, but would there be free options? Public education provides an opportunity, as piss-poor as it sometimes is, for those with no means at all to rise. Capitalism isn't perfect; it inherently fails when the desire is to supply something to everyone. We would not be a better country without compulsory, comprehensive education. Capitalism could not provide it; capitalism is the wrong way to solve that problem.

Re:Accuracy

[AtariEric]

Are you totally ignorant of U.S. History? Corporations have been molesting the U.S. government since at latest the Civil War. The Railroad Barons mutated what was once fairly restrictive corporate laws into a laissez-faire playground where corporations and their officers could do as they pleased. The recent resurgence in the '70s you mentioned stemmed a lot from (oddly enough) Ralph Nader's Unsafe At Any Speed and the "Hippee" movement that vilified corporations and seriously threatened to put them back under pre-Civil War-type laws. This scared Big Business into finally loosely joining together (until then, they tended to manipulate government seperately, and at the local level) to break the back of American democracy. Since then, it's been more the synergy of similar interests, rather than some Big Conspiracy, but the effect is the same: Big Business sees "too much" democracy as a threat to their bottom line, and believe it is right and feasible to replace it with a sham to preserve their power.

Re:Accuracy

[Kiryat Malachi]

You're not completely correct; sports at *most* universities do not make any money at all. The figure, depending on whose accounting you use, and how the accounting was handled, for # of schools who make a profit on sports is around 40-100 (figure from NCAA reports, though you have to read a few and do some math to come up with an exactish number). Michigan, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Florida, Oklahoma - these schools make money from sports. Grinnell, Ohio University, Northern Illinois - these schools do not. But they have them anyway.

Sports *are* big publicity raisers. They are considered valuable in an educational sense, in that they provide many people with an opportunity to compete at a high level, to work in team environments. They provide the student body with pride, they provide the school as a whole with publicity that can be used to recruit students. Don't think of the big money Division 1-A football players, the guys who play on national TV. Think of the track team, who compete in front of an audience of 100 on a good day. Think women's field hockey. Those are the sort of sports most college student-athletes play. Football, men's basketball, these are the exceptions, the ones that (occasionally) make enough money to cover the rest of the sports, the other 15 or 20 that lose money.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

i hope you get your wish! in fact. let us know where we can send the money for your plane ticket.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And, let me tell you again, I am all for the study of open-minded science. But to say that the study of the world around us (science) must exclude the possibility of a Intelligent Designer (a belief system), and then ignore, as you so accurately stated, that in the end, you can't explain everything and your theories end up resting on some belief system

That proves that you have not understood the basic principle of science: conclusions drawn based on evidence. There is no evidence that there was an "intelligent" being who created all. And who created that "being" and that being's intelligence ? Can you even define "intelligence" and "being" in the context of a universe that has not yet been created ? If any theory of "god" is proposed it can be immediately rendered useless by the question "who created god". In other words, the theory has explained everything by explaining nothing, which is dangerous because now you are ignorant of your own ignorance.

And that is exactly my point. No matter what, it comes to down to a belief system.

No, it isn't. Try to disbelieve in gravity and fly out of the 20th floor on a building and see what happens. The laws of physics give a damn about your beliefs.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And you should go the local church/mosque/temple/whatever and demand that put a clause right on top "This book may well be full of lies. Read at your own risk." Now, that would be open-mined.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Does not matter because by your logic, corporations which do the same (make money and restrict freedom of expression by all dirty means) must be banned too. Here comes the final nail in the coffin of capitalism.

Re:Accuracy

[Goth Biker Babe]

Did you know there's never been a communist economy in a democratic political system?

Yes, India!

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, all that calculus, physics, biology, chemistry, social sciences would be taught thru the monitor. And what about experimental labs. I guess some java applets will do right. Now, with that approach, when the future Americans lose jobs to Indians and Chinese and the rest of the world because of their ignorance, you can always blame it on the rest of the world for destroying the American way of life.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

but when, say, a quarter of your student body can't speak let alone read and write english, no realistic quantity of money is going to fix the problem.

Why would they speak English when they can speak Spanish? On one end we have the Anglo-Nazis who would shiver at the thought of educated Spanish (there are plenty in Spain) speakers doing all of their business in Spanish. No realistic amount of money will fix the attitudes of people like you.

Re:Accuracy

[k98sven]

Thank you for making the real (racial) motivation for your argument completely clear. Please name a single Swedish city where the police "no longer have control". I would have thought that widespread anarchy, riots and looting in Scandinavia would have made the news.

Well, I live in Sweden, and it's certainly news to me. I guess I must get out more. ;-P

It's worth noting that not only is it complete nonsense, it's also impossible nonsense - Neither the swedish police or government keeps any statistics on race, nationality or religion of criminals.

Re:Accuracy

[fingers1122]

This is all true, but it's a bit simplified. The fundamental problem with Communism (and Marxism in general) is that it predicts the direction in which society is going and then cuts out the natural process that society must undergo to get there organically. That's why communism only works in situations where it has developed organically. It's capricious and ideological to bypass a process and jump to a forecasted result. It's what the Nazis did: They predicted that Aryans would one day rule the world, so they sought to exterminate everyone else. Governments established under the broad ideology of "communism"--completely sure of where society is going--redistribute wealth. Nazis--also completely sure of where society was going--slaughtered more than 6-million people. Claiming a monopoly and certainty on principals and "the truth" is the first step toward totalitarianism. I see it less of an issue of centralized government and more of an issue concerning social philosophy.

So I'm always weary of politicians who seem to be too confident of where society is "naturally" heading. When I hear Bush talk about liberty and democracy (things that I love and value), I'm incredibly worried of his certainness of what the Iraqi people want. His absolute conviction is quite frightening to me.

Re:Accuracy

[Yokaze]

Do yourself a favour and search with Google for "We will bury you" and "translation". It is called "contended tranlation" at best.

My vav pokhoronim, as Khrushchev said, did not mean "We will bury you - " i.e. do you in, kill you, but it did mean: "We will survive you, be present at your funeral."
[...]
The phrase "we will bury you" in Russian is "my vas zakopaem" which Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev never said.

Source

> shows undue sympathy to the USSR.

Yeah, sorry to suggest, that the leaders in the USSR could be anything else than murdurous warmongers.

Re:Accuracy

[randallpowell]

All they have to do is adopt some token moral issues (abortion, gay marriage) and they've instantly got all the Bible thumpers voting for them, despite their other dispicable behavior (war mongering, etc.).

Not all that go along with those issues are Bible thumpers. However, assuming you're right, Bush et al would ignore any demands they'll make of them. Considering Bush doesn't need to run for re-election he may just ignore them.

Re:Accuracy

[randallpowell]

You're a loon.

I'm a human, not a bird.

Re:Accuracy

[The One and Only]

It is called "contended tranlation" at best.

Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of what I said.

Yeah, sorry to suggest, that the leaders in the USSR could be anything else than murdurous warmongers.

Your translation is the most sympathetic to Khruschev, while the translation "We will bury you" is the least sympathetic to Khruschev. But then again, if you weren't trolling, you would have gotten that point the first time I made it.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine yourself. Free.
Slashdot. Anything buttocks.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

i am not a Republican, but if you think Hillary will save the day.. (shakes head) are you in for a rude awkening....

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like referring it to the collapse of Communism. We still see Communism being fairly successful in China, even as it's easing into a (controlled) market economy. Depending on how you define success, Cuba has been incredibly successful, and this *despite* having a large neighbor seriouly hindering external trade (yes, all hell will break loose when Castro kicks it).

Of course, we have to worry about Cuba harboring terrorists now, as well as Communists in the 50s and 60s.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmmmmmmmmm, we already dealt with your terrorisom once... do we have to kick your @ss a again?
"Carry on with your life and you are still more likely to be killed by a lightening strike than an act of terrorism."

i guess you never heard of "666" we are all going to have to face that one...

Re:Accuracy

[c0p0n]

are you fucking crazy? My whole family had to left Spain in the 40's because they were socialists. My grandpa was like 15 years in prison. The economy only began to rise in late 60's. And all the democratic transition were driven by political forces (IE king Juan Carlos, Adolfo Suárez, Blanco...) with the aid of the police forces.

Sure, USA viewed Franco with good eyes... they were SURE that Spain would not become communist while Franco had the power.

Re:Accuracy

[rshoger]

If you really think about it "Democracy" might be today what "Communism" was 50 years ago, sans any real opposition.

Re:Accuracy

[Mr Europe]

For instance, some countries have this Internal Security Act which allows government to imprison anyone for a couple of years without trial

What do you men "some countries" ? Like Somalia, Libya and Nigeria ?

I have thought that US tries to stay in the "civilized democratic countries". The First Amendment has clearly been base for the democracy in USA. If its importance can be diminished in four years like it seems where could the country end in ten..twenty years ?! It seems like the greater the growd the dummier it behaves... Now I understand how the nazi party could get the peoples (almost) full support total dictatorship during Germany in 1930'ies!

Re:Accuracy

[Pantero Blanco]

I didn't say they were beneficial from a social standpoint, so no, I'm not crazy. Most of what I was taught about Spain's history (which was very little, and in foreign language class, not world history) tended to imply that things went "back to normal" a few years after the coup. I can accept that that was misinformation without too much difficulty, though...As you said, the US had a pretty good reason to view Franco with good eyes.

Re:Accuracy

[danila]

Nope. All these factors are irrelevant (although you were close with N2). The real problem is that people watch too much TV and don't read books.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

We've gone back to the '80s - the breakdown seems to be as follows:
[..]
- keeners who care about nothing but good grades, which are increasingly disconnected from actual learning and intelligence.

I agre with most of what you say, but I don't see the problem. It's always been like that. There will always be such whores and hippies. So what? Prostitutes have a well-paid job. Let them, if they wish. Get over it.

Now, your keeners-rant is actually interesting, because it comes down to the point of why American kids in general don't learn as much as they used to. That's, in my opinion, the main concern. What's an A? Compared to, say, a good grade in western Europe? Nothing. Everyone has an A. The kid who fucked his teacher, the kid with the father who controls the bills, the kid with the mum who blowjobs the teacher every second tuesday, and even the kid that literally lears to dictate sentences to reproduce on tests without properly understanding what they mean. Who really goes to academic graduate schools after college (or even to college after high school)? And who goes to a good one? Little, very little. You'd be surprised how high a percentage of positions in the best graduate schools in the country are being held by foreigners. Mostly Chinese and Europeans.

Don't get me wrong, there's a bunch of smart kids out there, and a lot of them make it. But some miss it, simply because they were taught an A is good enough. It isn't.

Re:Accuracy

[danila]

Gorbachev didn't try to "buy time". He wrongly believed that the invisible hand would solve all problems and thus destroyed the Soviet economic system. It was akin to taking IBM or Walmart and breaking it up into thousands of individual companies that MUST deal with each other using free markets. All existing relations (all planning, strategies, supply chains, R&D, everything) must be abandoned. Add to that the fact that noone in those companies had any experience with market economy and noone had a business education. And to top it off, eliminate what was left of the administrative infrastructure (as it happened when Soviet organisations were "violently" replaced by their Russian coutnerparts, eager to get their expensive real estate in the centre of Moscow). Finally, add nationalist elites in the republics that saw all this as a chance to severe their ties (including economic ties) with Russia.

The resulting mess has nothing whatsoever with inefficiency of the Soviet system. The Soviet system had positive economic growth almost every year until its destruction in 1990. And it had world's best science, one of the most powerful economies, one of the best educational system and one of the best welfare system. It's extremely disingenuous (or delusional) to say it "hadn't really worked all that well".

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Please name a single Swedish city where the police "no longer have control".

Smörebröd

Re:Accuracy

[danila]

"We will bury you" was a bad translation. The meaning of the phrase "My vas zakopaem" was that communism is more effective economic system and the US would eventually lose in a peaceful economic competition. This is indeed true and the development of AI and nanotechnology will relatively soon make capitalism obsolete, replaced by something, which will very closely resemble communism. So by no means was that a threat, just a prediction.

Re:Accuracy

[Krach42]

Interesting story. In my short one-month stay in Germany, I watched a lot of TV. One of the shows I liked was a Quiz Show, called, ominously "Das Quiz Show". I like this more than "Wer wird ein Millionaer?" (Who wants to be a Millionaire?) The reason why?

I would have a chance at winning on "Das Quiz Show". The questions were generally quite general knowledge, and nothing too culture specific.

In "Wer wird ein Millionaer?" the first questions up to 1.000 would kill me. I'd have no idea what the answers were, and would never have a chance at ANYTHING. Because so many of these questions are highly specialized into general public culture. Me, having not been a part of this culture for long enough, I have no idea what the correct answer is.

Think about it. First, throw out all your knowledge about our Fairy Tales, then answer the question: "Who was with Hansel in the woods?" You'd not have a clue!

Similarily, in a particular version of an IQ test, it asked, "What is the color of an orange?" Well, down in Florida, and other places where they grow oranges, most people eat GREEN oranges. They've often had to reevaluate intelligence tests, because of this dependence on a cultural baseline.

Re:Accuracy

[danila]

It must be more than a "few Americans". In Germany a quarter of people do not even know that Earth revolves around the Sun! (source: a representative survey by VDI Nachrichten)

A vast majority of people are not just stupid, they are total illiterate morons. I am convinced that the problem is a systemic one. The commercialisation of TV, the lack of interest from the governments to have a literate informed populace, the inflexible education system that can't change to accomodate the changed audience of students, all these factors contribute to dumbing down of people.

P.S. BTW, you may be wrong about people's knowledge of Britney Spears's name.

Re:Accuracy

[thrash242]

I said IIRC, which means I wasn't sure that it was in Sweden, but I read an article to that effect about some northern European country.

And no, it has nothing to do with race, it has to do with ideology. Thanks for making your kneejerk reactions completely clear.

Re:Accuracy

[thrash242]

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I'm an atheist, and I'm against any religion (or practicioners of an extreme subset of one) that has such beliefs. I've never heard that, since I don't listen/watch to Ann Coulter.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

lol! be my guest...
"Personally, I've given up and I hope to make a plan to be out of this hell and in the E.U. within the next decade.".....
but many people believe the "anti-christ" will rise to power in europe. soooo, in case your a little short on current events, the "anti-christ" will make what hitler did seem like a girl scout picnic. but, what horror hitler did do, will be dwarfed by the scale of evil to come (666) because it will effect the entire world!

"Christianity + the opposition of "evil" (read: gay rights and terrorism) makes you intelligent."

i`m not going to justify bush ok? he`s not perfect. but, do you really believe hillary is any better? now you can think what you want and put people down who believe in God. so, i will make a challenge for you and all (if any) who read this. if your so smart when the "anti-christ" and "666" becomes a reality, how come i knew and spoke about it and you didn`t?
if your so smart how about predicting an earthquake? what? you can`t? gee... ok, scince i`m claiming to know God and God knows the future i`ll predict one. so if it doesn`t happen i must be wrong... so here goes.. the antelope valley will have an earthquake bigger than 7.5, big enough to kill thousands, big enough to put a large crack in the ground, and big enough that one of the cites in antelope valley will become a household name because of it.. now again if it doesn`t come to pass your right i`m wrong. but, when it does, how come i knew about it and you didn`t? a lucky guess? yeah right. want more? ok, you made some crack about gay rights. so if thier is nothing wrong about being gay and thiers no God to judge them. then nothing should happen to gays for being gay right? wrong! watch what happens to san francisco when God judges them. so here again if your right nothing should really happen but when it does how come i knew it and you didn`t?

Re:Accuracy

[thrash242]

Ok, I tried to find articles to that effect in response to your obviously sarcastic post.

Here's one with links to a Swedish news site
I realize that the site may be biased, but it has links to the original Swedish articles, if you care to read them. I can't read Swedish, so I can't vouch for accuracy of translation.

Keep in mind that news (at least here in the US) doesn't mention this kind of thing because of political correctness.

Re:Accuracy

[thrash242]

Oh come on, you think they wouldn't notice if the vast majority of criminals were of a certain race? I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but I'll repost an address to translations of Swedish news articles (with links to the original Swedish sites).

Here

And no, I'm not racist; it's already been implied once, and I'm sure it will again in this discussion. Nor am I Christian; I'm an atheist, so I'm not biased for or against any religion by default.

I thought this kind of talk was paranoid at first too, but I looked into it and keep seeing disturbing things.

Re:Accuracy

[thrash242]

Apparently one is called Malmø. If ordinary street crime is like that in Europe, then I'm glad I live here.

I'll post this link here too in response:

Here

As I've said, I can't vouch for the accuracy of translation, and I know the site has a bias, but it has links to the original Swedish articles.

Re:Accuracy

[Travy.b]

not that anyone will be reading this thread so late, and even if they do my message will be at the bottom of the pile, but the US constitution is only valid for government. It holds no real power for the people anymore whatsoever (and never really did).

take the time to read through this link.

http://nodebts.temp.powweb.com/theseries/part1.txt

then go to page2 etc etc...

Re:Accuracy

[robosmurf]

The best case government is a benevolent dictatorship

This is commonly quoted as a truism. However, I don't think it is true.

Even if the ruler had the best interests of the people in mind, they may not be able to make the best decisions due to lack of information about local situations, and limited time to consider the information. Also one person (or a limited number) cannot be an expert on all topics and so may not be able to make the best decisions in all areas.

Thus, it is possible that a distributed system could be inherently better.

Re:Accuracy

[satans_advocate]

Private schools are subject to scruitiny by the entire relavent community (i.e. parents that pay for their kids to attend). Furthermore, I believe it's actually manifested much clearer in a private school considering the fact that if a parents have qualms with the teaching practices the school uses, they can take immediate action by pulling their kid out of that school.

Don't know about the US, but in the land of Oz private schools have a board of directors, a formal complaint process, an administrative tribunal, and an appeals process.

This gives the customers (ie. the parents) enormous recourse when moving to improve the quality of education their child is receiving. It also gives them power over the teachers. In the public school system, teachers usually have to do something illegal before the Board of Education moves against them.

Re:Accuracy

[ttys00]

Yes, Vegemite is Australian. You can buy it in Britain however, since there are a couple of hundred thousand Australians living in London at any given time, and we (I'm one of them) buy it.

Re:Accuracy

[Zilquis]

I'd say this is a must watch set of programmes. Even if you start watching it and think what a load of crap, its worth it to see what points are made.

Transcripts can be found here http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037 .htm

Re:Accuracy

[k98sven]

Ok, let's look at that link.
First article is a reference to a sensationalist tabloid, Aftonbladet. And the translation is in part exaggerating, and in part simply wrong. For instance, there is no sentence in the article at all corresponding to "It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants."
(If you don't belive me, the swedish word for muslim is 'muslim' (unsurprizingly) can you find it in the swedish text?)

The second article is about people moving away from Malmö. The article does not mention muslims at all, and immigrants are only noted in one sentence, which says that 'Immigrant families can rarely afford houses.' (in the context of there being a shortage of apartments and surplus of houses in the city)

In the third story, (which is not an article, but an opinion piece) there is no mention of any "boy of Afghan origin had made plans to blow up his own school". Nor is the part of the city (Rosengård) in question ever referred to as an 'immigrant ghetto', in fact the title of the piece is 'No swedish ghettos'.

I think it's safe to assume the rest follows the same pattern.

Yes, you are a racist. Your sources are racist, and even given that they are obviously biased to posting stories which can be interpreted as anti-muslim or anti-immigrant, they still resort to pure fabrication.

You are not reading that site because you want real factual information, but because you want to reinforce your own warped racist opinions and world view.

Re:Accuracy

[hostyle]

Communism may have been a real threat. At the moment no one really knows the truth yet of what went on back in the USSR during that period. Perhaps they were a real threat a true super-power on a par with the US. This would have been some sort of miracle when you consider the state they were in after fighting (and getting massacred) in both world wars. Now they would have certainly have been aware of the power of the US, and well aware of the US plans for World Domination^H^Hglobalisation, and - seeing as no-one else seemed capable - decided something had to be done and did what they could. They got their propaganda machine going at full steam.

Of course, US leaders would welcome such a "threat" as it gave them a good reason to build up military power to combat the "threat". They built bigger and better propaganda machines than the Reds even thought possible and set turned them on. If the public were to believe that those damn Commies are about to invade 'any minute now', you can be sure they will support the government spending all the money that could be used for other stuff (education, health care, whatever) on more weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Accuracy

[Kosi]

You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.

This already applies now. But I've almost given up to expect people to grok it even when you smash it in their face. They don't want to see it, because if they did, they'd have to do something about it. It like the blue-or-red-pill decision in matrix, only that most people decide this unconcious.

Re:Accuracy

[hostyle]

So far everyone has died. Its pretty hard, nay impossible, to determine what might have happened to them if unfortunate cases of death hadn;t intervened.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

in Sweden (IIRC), where in some cities, police have admitted that they no longer have control due to hordes of Islamic immigrants causing chaos

You do not recall correctly. There are no hordes of Islamic immigrants causing chaos in any city in Sweden. Where the hell did you dream that up?

Re:Accuracy

[thrash242]

I'm not a racist. I make no assumptions, negative or otherwise, about someone based solely on race. Being against an ideology that is held primarily be members of a certain race doesn't mean that I'm racist. I'm just as against that ideology if it's held by black, white, brown, whatever color of people. If I'm against hip-hop culture, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm racist against black people, does it? So stop throwing around the "racist" line; It's not true.

That source was the first I found in an admittedly short time searching. I'd be happy to look in local Swedish sources, but I don't know the language.

The example of Sweden was one example that sprung to mind of an overall trend, that was my point. I admit I should have looked up more sources to back up the claim, but I stand by the main part of my post, that radical Islamics want to and are in the process of taking over countries in an attempt to Islamicize them. Members of these groups have said it straight out. I have no problem with imigration or immigrants, unless they refuse to abide by the laws of the country to which they move and attempt to change said laws.

Re:Accuracy

[k98sven]

You make quite a few assumptions. For instance, immigrants = muslims and muslims = radical islamists.

Perhaps you should get to know some ordinary and representative muslims before you make judgements about muslims or Islam as a whole.

You are taking a group of fringe radicals and applying it to muslims as a whole. That is racist.

Besides, radical islamists aren't taking over anything. That is complete nonsense. They aren't changing any laws, nor are they trying to. How do you propose they'd do it? They're not even 1/1000 of the population anywhere in Europe or the US.

If you want to combat extreme ideologies based on religion, you'd do better to go after the christian fundamentalists. They're far more common, and equally dangerous.

Re:Accuracy

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

As I've said, I can't vouch for the accuracy of translation, and I know the site has a bias, but it has links to the original Swedish articles.

Well, being from Sweden I can put your mind at rest. It's severely overdramatized (albeit competently done, e.g. the ambulance personel said that people had been spitting at them, not attacking them with clubs and stones).

You have to take the background into account. In Sweden we have a death rate due to violent crime of about 1 per 100k inhabitants and year. Compare that to the US for example, which is around 8 per 100k (if memory serves). So when the local police commander says "we are not in control of the (particular) situation" it means something quite different. He's much more 'in control' of that situation in Rosengård than a watch commander in South Central LA would be by comparison. Even one that claimed to have the situation well in hand by his standards.

It's like this. With the down turn of the economy in the past years we've seen youth gangs develop in Sweden. We've never had any youth gangs before, so of course we're outraged and society's reeling with the readjustment of having to deal with a situation that previously only existed as imported american cops and robbers shows on TV. (It's quite clear that's where most of the current gangs got their ideas from).

Also, and here one should be firm, while there are now the beginnings of segregation and gettoisation in Sweden, something we've never had before, it's got nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with poverty and disenfranchisement. Race or religion does not enter into it at all.

So, in summary, while I don't like the current state of affairs, the trend, or the failures of our social policies, the situation is really bad only from our own very spoilt perspective. I've lived in the very worst parts of Göteborg (second largest city) and while you had to look after your bicycle, it's a complete and utter breeze compared to many places in the US I've visited. I constantly remind myself and other Swedes who go to the US that "Remember that you're not street smart, you're not at all used to the level of attention one has to give ones own security in the US". From a perspective of crime, Sweden (and the rest of the nordic countries) are about as bad as Japan! And we remove our shoes indoors to prove it. :-)

P.S. And the sources chosen, far from being paragons of the best Swedish journalism, are actually tabloids. They're not the Sun, I'll grant them that, but tabloids all the same.

Re:Accuracy

[k98sven]

You know, I knew a guy who talked like this before. He was a friend and class-mate of mine.

He was always talking about how the immigrants were 'taking over'.

Like you he never could make an argument which stood up, but held onto his belief nonethless.

Like you he started out denying he was a racist, made excuses all the time, saying that he had no problems with immigrants in themselves. But just like your comments, he never had any problems generalizing about them or making false claims.

(Another irony here is that his own mother was foreign-born)

Like you he was a passionate fan of 'law and order'.

After a few years he 'came out', and stopped making excuses for himself, shaved his head and went out and started beating people up.

Today (9 years later), he's a part-time plumber and full-time leader from the neo-nazi National Socialist Front. He hasn't really done a single useful thing in his life. And it's especially sad because he was a smart guy.

If you want to go down that path of ignorance and hate, be my guest. But be honest with yourself about it and get a real short haircut.

Re:Accuracy

[The-Bus]

So what are your specific qualms against the No Child Left Behind Act?

Re:Accuracy

[diskmaster23]

We already do live in a corporate controlled country. Just walk around in our high schools today and you'll find that everybody is hearing name brand shirts, Nike, Abercrombie & Finch, Old Navy..etc.. Face it, we already do live in a corperate controlled country.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

the site jihadwatch.com might be biased? yeah, i guess it might; the creative invention of eurabia is kinda a giveaway, ain't it?

i went ahead and read this linked article, and besides what is quoted on the jihadwatch site, the chief of police for that particular area (rosengård, a suburb with high immigrant population) say that criminality isn't higher there than in other parts of the city.

most people interviewed in the article claim that the problems are due to unemployment and segregation (sweden has a moronic way of putting all immigrants and refuges in the same suburbs), not jihad.

the other people interviewed speak of their personal experiences (an ambulance paramedic, a cop), and don't do any analysis as to the causes of criminality in Rosengård.

now compare this to the outline on jihadwatch:

Malmø, Sweden. The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nations's third largest city.

It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Rosengård, Malmø, for twenty years, and still don't know how to read or write Swedish.

Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help. Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive.

The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized. "Something drastic has to be done, or much more blood will be spilled" says one of the locals.


nowhere in the above mentioned original article is the word 'muslim' found, and the person who did the translation committed so many errors that i cannot believe they are unintentional.

i imagine people reading jihadwatch either want to comfirm what they already think of islam, or they, no wait, that would be the only reason.

f64

disclaimer: i realized i could read and comment on every article linked from jihadwatch so that i don't base my whole argument on one (maybe false) translation, but fuckit.

anyone with more patience than i is welcome to do so.

Re:Accuracy

[BigDogCH]

"The correct place for the responsibility of learning is with the student, not the teacher."
I used to believe this, until I actually went into teaching. And while it would help for the students to take this responsiblity, we cannot expect them to when the schools are filled with absolutly horrid teachers.
I am not sure, but here in the midwest we have thousands of people trying to land teaching jobs, unsuccessfully. Many of them would make great teachers. In the meantime, over half of our current teachers are horrid.
Those unemployed sit and wonder if they can pay their mortguage, and the current teachers sit and whine because they are only making $35K per year. If the pay was too low, there wouldn't be thousands of people waiting for those jobs. The pay thing is off topic, but it does go along with part of the problem.

"If you want improved education, then convince students that this is true"

How can we do this without decent teachers?

Re:Accuracy

[BigDogCH]

30% informative
30% insightful
40% flamebait

Wow, that is fairly even! I am impressed. So, considering this wasn't flamebate, it was actual information with a few opinions thrown in, I can assume that 4/10 of the voters were teachers.

Re:Accuracy

[Jason Ford]

In a nutshell, Communism and Democracies are great ideals, but tend towards Anarchy.

You say this like it's a bad thing. You must mean 'absence of government, and hence, chaos', and not 'the rejection of hierarchical power structures and the absence of coercion to enforce the will of the privileged.'

Anarchy is considerably more sophisticated than your high school history or government teachers would have you believe. For an excellent introduction to anarchist principles, please consider checking out Emma Goldman's 'Anarchism and Other Essays.' It's a very short and enjoyable read, and it's available at Project Gutenberg. (It looks like the Web Server is temporarily having a problem connecting to the Database Server.)

Re:Accuracy

[SoTuA]

And how many people have you met that you've called smart that were just naturally intelligent but lacked knowledge (either general/common knowledge or specialized, as in a degree in something)?

Yet I have met people who, while being walking encyclopedias, couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

And yes, I can name at least one person that I have met that I think that is VERY intelligent, far beyond his "knowledge". (And irritates the hell out of me because of all that unused potential, but that's another story entirely)

Your point is a good one, the ones that will shine will be the people for whom knowledge AND intelligence walk hand in hand (and forward ;).

Re:Accuracy

[thrash242]

Thank you very much for your reasonable and non-hostile response. It was informative, unlike most of the ones I've been getting. All I know about Sweden is what I read, having not been there. It's good to get a actual first-hand account, and from that, it seems that what I've heard and read may be overblown.

Re:Accuracy

[VirtualLemming]

The grandparent is probably referring to a FoxNews.com article a while back. It was a pretty inflammatory article that tried to make it seem like Western Europe has huge problems with muslim immigrants. It pissed me of because I live in the Swedish city mentioned and I found it very exaggerated and biased.

Re:Accuracy

[VirtualLemming]

Aah! Found it! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139614,00.html

Re:Accuracy

[Jason Ford]

I'd prefer to keep him here. We have his statement that dissent is anti-American. We'll use that against him once the Neocons are out of power.

"What, you don't agree with President Hillary on this issue? That's dissent, and that's anti-American, according to your own Slashdot post from four years ago? Why do you hate America?"

My guess is that his view of dissent will have changed considerably by the time his party is out of power.

Re:Accuracy

[Sheepdot]

Incentive fool.

There was none. No, I'm not being ignorant, I'm being practical. Name one change the railroad barons pushed through federal law. There aren't any, you're just upset that they were allowed to "work people to death". Ironically, the employees of construction crews today have that same concern to deal with, yet you never hear about it. Why do you suppose that is?

Re:Accuracy

[Jason Ford]

If you have the time, you might find Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" a very informative read. Although Zinn is not reluctant to offer his own analysis of the source materials, the first and second-hand sources are fascinating and informative.

For instance, you will learn much about the history of corporate involvement in government, which very likely predates the 1970s.

Re:Accuracy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Dear coward,

Islamic terrorists are very little threat to the U.S.A. The entire history of Islamic terrorism has so far managed to kill about as many people as die every week in car crashes. It is more likely that you will be struck by lightning and then die in a plane crash than be killed by a terrorist act.

The so called terrorists are just radical militants. Their are plenty of every religion, especially christian. Islam is a traditionally peaceful religion, with less of a history of forced conversions than christianity which wiped out entire cultures in the process of enslaving and converting them. The religion does stress submission to the authority of the church more so than the christian religion, but both are pretty strict about it.

The majority of the people in Iraq could not care less about our freedom or anything else about us up until a few years ago. Now many of them hate us, but probably because we blew up a lot of their country and killed thousands of them, then put a dictator in charge of their country, emptied all their government funds into the pockets of various governments and corporations, took out a large loan on their behalf, and then divided that up. We raped their people in prisons, tortured them, beat them in the streets, murdered them on camera, and built a giant wall in the middle of their largest city and filled it with Americans an foreigners. These people now legally own everything in the country and go out surrounded by armed guards to order their "workers."

If their are people who hate the U.S. enough to die in a fiery explosion to hurt us, we have only ourselves to blame. We did everything possible to goad them into it.

If you want to see some scary radicals how about looking at the KKK, or the Michigan Militia. They have killed more Americans than anyone else and are much more likely to kill you. The threat from the Islamic "terrorists" is hugely overblown although we are doing our best to make it real. Right now they are just a scape goat and a reason why you have to give up all your rights, which will somehow, magically, make you safe.

Re:Accuracy

[Oblio]

More and more, redistricting is used to guarentee seats to incumbents to the point where turnover is now higher in the senate than it is in the house (the opposite of the original plan).

Its troubling.

Re:Accuracy

[I_Love_Pocky!]

Well over 3500 Americans have lost their lives to terrorism over the last few decades.

3500 Americans is not a significant number. It is certainly a horrible thing, but it isn't a number that should cause us to give up our freedoms for security. Far more Americans have died in the past to provide us with the freedoms we have in this country. We shouldn't disgrace their sacrifices because we sleep better with our own government peeking through our windows at night.

Are we still going to hear that now that we have been attacked on our own soil?

From people who aren't cowards.

You can disagree about the Iraq war, but the Afghani war was (and is) needed. And Terrorism is MOST DEFINATELY A THREAT.

I suppose I agree with Afghanistan. Terrorisim is a threat, it just isn't a siginificant one.

Re:Accuracy

[Skim123]

Yeah, my point wasn't that we shouldn't spend public money on free education, but rather I was disputing the claim that if it weren't for public education, then only the elite few would be able to afford schooling. This is simply false.

Capitalism isn't perfect; it inherently fails when the desire is to supply something to everyone

Last time I checked food wasn't free to everyone, yet how many deaths by starvation or malnurishment were there in the US last year? (Granted, there were some, but far less than say those who died from the hands of our military.) What makes capitalism work so nicely is that if there is something a person needs, they're motivated to work, to do something to contibute to societ, in order to make the money needed for the desired object. Yes, it isn't perfect, but I think it is far better than the other economic model alternatives. (Again, I'm not saying schools shouldn't be free, but don't besmirch capitalism...)

Re:Accuracy

[c0p0n]

I'm sorry if I were a bit rude on the previous post, but this matter manages to touch my nerves. I'm sure you understand.

About the recent spanish story: long story short, after the spanish Civil War the whole country was destroyed. We did not have an Industrial Revolution - the little and developing industry we had by that time was completely destroyed by bombs.

After that, 20 years of insane government repression, while people were starving on the street. Argentina had to help us (thank you argentinos), sending a huge amount of food overseas. People were, in some areas, literally dying all the time because lack of food and medicines.

America did some pressure on Franco on the 60's, and the dictatorship loosed a bit its leash on the people. The economy began to run, slowly but properly, till mid-70's because of the tourism. The problem was that the economy growth was somewhat artificial, very dependant on the government. Add to that the petroleum crisis in '73, and the death of Franco in 1975: the economy was almost destroyed when the new democracy arose. We needed like 20 years to reach some stability.

Re:Accuracy

[C10H14N2]

True... it's just that it wasn't Reagan who knocked it down. If you were to argue Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, okay, maybe, but Reagan? They didn't increase military spending a single ruble during Reagan's term. By the time he took his first oath of office, they had long since figured out that it was a race not worth running, let alone "winning." By the time Gorbechev entered office, they had largely also figured out that their entire economic system, regardless of their internal and external political pressures, was a failure... and it isn't like Reagan didn't know this. He simply used American fervor to his own political advantage. All the military dalliances of the 80's were utterly pointless in taking down the Soviet Union. However, they made for some sweet sweetheart deals...

Re:Accuracy

[raider_red]

Or Michael Moore. If Bush were half as bad as Moore said he was, he would have disappeared never to be heard from again.

Re:Accuracy

[iminplaya]

Let's not forget the government's loss of control over the media as satellite dishes became popular. I'm not sure how it's affecting China yet. They seem to be very good at maintaining tight control over what info is coming out as far as the country's well being is concerned. Our own media makes it look all rosy with everybody driving nice cars and with new cel phones, etc. Must be the "Walmart" effect. Maybe if Walmart opens a few prisons...er..."factories" in Russia they might come out of their funk. I, for one, don't think the kids ignorance is a mere coincidence. This goes very well with whatever plans our gov't overlords have for the constitution and the country in general. This could be a first step into the prison society our "leaders" need to maintain a cheap labor pool for the giant corporations that will make Walmart look like a kid's lemonade stand. Good help is getting hard to find, and forced labor is becoming the corporation's last hope.

Re:Accuracy

[Hatta]

Intelligent design simply begs the question. Saying "God did it" is not scientific unless you can tell me HOW God did it. I mean you can say thunder and lightning are caused by Thor, but does that actually tell us anything? The basic characteristic that makes something scientific is whether it gives us a basis to make testable (falsifiable) predictions. Intelligent design does not allow that.

Re:Accuracy

[JavaLord]

The Bush administration would like to make the case that terrorism is the gravest threat the US has ever faced, but it simply isn't. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than give up my freedoms.

But losing your life in a terrorist attack isn't the "gravest threat" that faces the US. Maybe it's the gravest threat in your eyes, but the US faces bigger issues that the loss of your life. Say, the terrorists manage to set off a small nuclear device that makes lower manhattan uninhabitable? What do you think the economic and human costs of that would be? How about a coordinated attack on major US cities?

While WW3 with Soviet Russia would have destroyed life on earth, so neither side would risk a nuclear attack, terrorists have nothing to lose and will die for their cause. After all, what do they have to lose? Their lives? They go to Allah then. And where exactly do we lauch our counter attack if we are attacked again? Nowhere. Which is why Terrorism is a greater threat to the US than Communism ever was. Communists saw the foolishness in a war they couldn't win. They didn't want to die...Islamic terrorists have no fear of death, thus there is nothing the US can threaten them with which makes them much more of a threat to the US.

Re:Accuracy

[JavaLord]

3500 Americans is not a significant number.

Unless of course, it was one of your family or friends who died in there. I personally think all life is important, so 3500 is a significant number of people to die for me, especially if their death was preventable.

It is certainly a horrible thing, but it isn't a number that should cause us to give up our freedoms for security.

What freedoms have you given up? Please explain. The only freedom I've seen curtailed in this country is the second amendment. By the way, if a few people in those planes on 9/11 had guns, do you think the terrorists would have managed to crash those planes into the twin towers and the pentagon? Even if the terrorists had guns?

Far more Americans have died in the past to provide us with the freedoms we have in this country. We shouldn't disgrace their sacrifices because we sleep better with our own government peeking through our windows at night.

Really? Who in the government was peeking through your window?

I suppose I agree with Afghanistan. Terrorisim is a threat, it just isn't a siginificant one.

Oh, well then we won't worry about it. Hell why do we do AIDS research? Cancer is a MUCH greater threat than AIDS, so we should just put all of our money into that. Saying something isn't a significant threat, because it only kills a few people compared to something else is a poor line of thinking and shows disregard for human life. That is sad.

Re:Accuracy

[JFitzsimmons]

What exactly do you mean by "failed"? What would you consider "success"?

Re:Accuracy

[I_Love_Pocky!]

I personally think all life is important

So clearly we shouldn't have invaded Iraq then.

especially if their death was preventable.

My problem is that I don't think a single thing the Bush administration is doing is preventing terrorism. Especially the patriot act and the Iraq war. Still, Bush is spending billions of dollars to combat an invisible enemy that likely can not be defeated in such a fashion.

3500 is a significant number of people to die for me

I think it is significant cause for us to go after the people responsible for those deaths (Bin Laden). Not to declare war on the Muslim world simply because portions of that population like to see Americans die. Just because a group of people hate us doesn't mean they will necessarily attack us, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they could even if they wanted to.

It also isn't significant cause for us to give up liberties here at home to help "combat" terror. Granted, I personally have not felt the affects of the powers granted the government by the patriot act, but have you read the thing? It goes against everything I think this country should stand for.

Re:Accuracy

[Craig Davison]

What's scary to foreign businesses is that they lose everything they've invested in the small country. Land and industry become the property of the people/new communist government.

Re:Accuracy

[Kiryat Malachi]

Capitalism works great for *most* things. It fails when the goal is to provide something to everyone, regardless of demand, because it is rooted in supply and demand. Situations where, whether by desire, necessity, or law, everyone is required to acquire the product, are situations where capitalism is likely to fail some portion of society. If we've decided that all of society should have this product, this failure is an issue.

Food isn't a particularly good example for your point, given that prior to the existence of a social safety net (which is not a capitalist concept) starvation wasn't particularly uncommon. And even with that social safety net, that attempt to provide food for all, we fail and a few people starve or malnourish. Similarly, comprehensive compulsory education, while it may not achieve its goal of educating everyone, does a better job at it than a capitalist economic model can.

Capitalism has its benefits, and its drawbacks. Understanding the latter should be required before you preach the former.

Re:Accuracy

[Skim123]

Food isn't a particularly good example for your point, given that prior to the existence of a social safety net (which is not a capitalist concept) starvation wasn't particularly uncommon.

By "social safety net" are you referring to welfare and social security? I'd don't have stats to back this up, but I'd wager that the decrease in malnutrition and starvation today in the US is more attributable to increased wealth and spending power of its citizenry (a byproduct of capitalism) along with technological advances that have made a wide variety of foods readily available year round and safe from spoilage. Of course, government subsidies and tax law help keep prices low (i.e., farm grants/subsidies and no sales tax on food items), but in the same breath one could imagine that prices are kept a bit high by the government by these same devices, as it gives American farmers an unfair advantage and thus robs opportunities from competition in other nations, which would drive down prices.

Similarly, comprehensive compulsory education, while it may not achieve its goal of educating everyone, does a better job at it than a capitalist economic model can.

Eh, you say that, and it makes sense that it would be true, but I don't know if I'd buy into it 100%. For example, imagine that society decided that computers were a "right" that should be enjoyed by all its citizens. So the government uses tax dollars to build factories and hire engineers and starts making computers that they then give away. You might be right in arguing that now everyone can have a computer, but in the same breath, I'd wager that the quality of computers would decrease, as there would be no drive to improve, no competitors breathing down you neck, so to speak.

If you are judging public education strictly by how many people are educated, then, yes, a government funded system will always outperform a capitalistic one. But if you are more concerned about the average quality of education, then I'd argue the capitalist approach would be superior.

Capitalism has its benefits, and its drawbacks. Understanding the latter should be required before you preach the former.

I think I clearly understand the drawbacks of capitalism. I never claimed it to be perfect, but I do believe it to be a better system than the other economic options available. Capitalism is going to really be great for a handful, it's going to suck for a handful, and be better than average for the vast majority. But for this cost to the few who get squished, society as a whole moves forward in leaps and bounds not otherwise possible. (For example, would we have the level of technological advance that we have today if, say, Communism had prevailed from the Cold War?)

Re:Accuracy

[JavaLord]

So clearly we shouldn't have invaded Iraq then.

I don't think it was the best idea in the world. In the end, we may have saved lives by removing Sadaam from power, however I don't think America should be trying to democratize the world. It is, looking good so far and if it sparks change in the region, who knows how many lives might be saved?

My viewpoint on the whole thing goes back to Washingtons advice not to search abroad for monsters to slay.

My problem is that I don't think a single thing the Bush administration is doing is preventing terrorism. Especially the patriot act and the Iraq war. Still, Bush is spending billions of dollars to combat an invisible enemy that likely can not be defeated in such a fashion.

The patriot act is a mixed bag to me. Many of the provisions were in use already for Mafia members. I don't have a problem with the provisions that are for "suspected terrorists only". The few they threw in that can be used at any time are a little bothersome. I'd like to see them implement something where if they use these powers, they at some point have to be accountable to the court at least and run the reason they used them by a judge.

I think it is significant cause for us to go after the people responsible for those deaths (Bin Laden). Not to declare war on the Muslim world simply because portions of that population like to see Americans die. Just because a group of people hate us doesn't mean they will necessarily attack us, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they could even if they wanted to.

We haven't declared war on the Muslim world though, if we had the response to 9/11 would have been much more harsh. We are trying to "change' the muslim world in the hopes that a changed environment will prevent terrorism. I think all out war would have a better chance of success, but I am not advocating that solution either.

It also isn't significant cause for us to give up liberties here at home to help "combat" terror. Granted, I personally have not felt the affects of the powers granted the government by the patriot act, but have you read the thing? It goes against everything I think this country should stand for.

I don't see any liberties given up, except some questionable violations of search and seziure laws. I think people who are against the act would be better off stating their case logically, and asking for reform of the act rather than the typical "OMG BUSH IS A NAZI HE IS TAKING OUR LIBERTIES". I don't think the act goes against everything this country stands for (that is an extreme statement). I do think it oversteps the bounds of illegal searches. There is a need for wiretaps and and searches without a judges consent if there is either the belief that judges are being paid off, or that delay will lead to the death of innocents. Like I mentioned before, I'd just like to see some type of checks and balances worked into it. If you don't want to go to the Judge beforehand for the warrent, fine if it's a terror suspect, but you had better be able to justify it later and prove you had probable cause.

Re:Accuracy

[techno-vampire]

I think the collapse of Communism was a good deal more complex than the claims that Reagan outspent the Soviets.

Of course it was. Forcing the Soviets to try to keep up with SDI was merely the endgame. If Brezhnev hadn't clamped down on the people and poured all the money into the military, the Soviet economy wouldn't have been shaky enough for it to work. However, the people who came up with the idea did so because they knew how close the Soviets were to collapse.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity... hah! Chistianity is as genocidal as it gets, and if you don't think there's a little of that influening US policy, you're lying to yourself. I just wan't to start an extreme-atheist terror organization to exterminate ALL religeons. (kidding folks, kidding!)

Re:Accuracy

[kiltedtaco]

Nothing to do with reason? I was simply reminding everyone that war involves death. You're also correct to point out that some number of people are still alive, but to express that as a coefficient of the number killed seems to link two very unrelated counts. If another person is killed in the war, does that mean that four more are saved? What exactly made you pick four anyways? Was it simply because it is greater than one?

Your extrapolation that I hate republicans and George Bush is, just that. I was pointing out a case of narrow-mindedness (believing or suggesting that saddam was the only victim of the war.) In reply, you present another example of profound narrow-mindedness, by suggesting that I hate George Bush because I realize that people died in the war. If only false dichotomies could die too.

Re:Accuracy

[Hinkkanen]

Social democracy has nothing to do with communism. Social democrat party is a slightly left wing political party and communists usually hate it even greater than they hate the right wing parties.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerala also has the highest suicide rate in India and (nearly) the highest unemployment rates. Their GDP is well below the national average, over half of which is remitances from Keralans living abroad. Not quite the utopia you make it out to be...

Re:Accuracy

[Magius_AR]

Did you know there's never been a communist economy in a democratic political system?

And did you know (as I posted elsewhere) that over 50% of all your money you give the government goes to borderline communistic "social" programs (ala welfare/SS)? That's dangerously close to a communistic economy to me (but hey, at least I get to spend the other 70% of my money as I choose).

Re:Accuracy

[Rangsk]

That's a good point, and I certaintly didn't mean to downplay collegate sports in general. I'm on a sport team myself at college, and have to pay money out of my own pocket because the University doesn't fund us nearly enough. I was more refering to what the parent poster was saying, where there are athletes at colleges who get basically free degrees with no work because they are athletes. In those cases, it's purely financial, or as you said publicity raisers.

Re:Accuracy

[Kiryat Malachi]

I'm referring to welfare, food stamps, somewhat to social security, yes. Without those, a segment of our population *does not eat*. We don't let old people starve in the streets these days. Sure, we can now afford to do it because of capitalism, because of advances - but those advances alone wouldn't have caused the change, they required a *social* change, a decision not to let the byproducts of unmonitored capitalism fall out. We pay for welfare by the products of capitalism, and this is good. But if we left welfare recipients on their own devices, capitalism wouldn't do shit to help them. We've decided that we shouldn't let people starve in the streets, even if it lowers the overall efficiency of the system.

Similarly, I'm saying that for some things, we've decided that "the few who get squished" just aren't acceptable. We've said a lower rate of progress is acceptable, a lower efficiency is okay, that we're okay with the distribution no longer being normal. We've made the decision that we must not compromise on some things. With that decision made, capitalism fails to satisfy our desires entirely; we have to work around it on the edges.

Suppose society decided computers were a "right" to be enjoyed by all citizens, just as we've decided education is. So the government uses tax dollars to build factories, hire people, and gives away free computers. Everyone can now have a computer. Those who capitalism has rewarded can buy *better* computers than the free government computers, but *everyone* has a computer. The average quality of computers will go down, but the average quality of the computer owned by the average citizen, where not having a computer is equal to zero quality, will go up. See what I'm saying? Capitalism is good for the first goal, but doesn't necessarily succeed at the second.

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

Except that the Soviet Union had had major economic problems for at least a decade before Reagan came on the scene. He can't be credited for years of mismanagement and stagnation that happened before he even got into the White House.

I'm not saying he should. However, under a President like Carter, who would not have worried the USSR, it likely would have held together a little longer. As stated, Reagan was the tap on that house of cards. To the winner go the laurels.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Communisim was a real threat in the cold war period. "We will bury you." was not a joke.

Millions of Russians died in the world wars - far more than from other nations. Russia's behaviour in the post-war era was entirely rational. They effectively moved their border outwards so that they wouldn't face similar threats in future. By far the most aggressive nation in the world, since Germany in world war 2, has been the USA. It was aggressive throughout the cold war. It is aggressive now. Why do you think there is so much hatred against the USA in the world today? It certainly isn't because the world hates Coca Cola.

Communism was never a threat - communism is an idea. Soviet nuclear missiles were a threat, but they only developed them because the USA did so first.

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

True... it's just that it wasn't Reagan who knocked it down. If you were to argue Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, okay, maybe, but Reagan? They didn't increase military spending a single ruble during Reagan's term.

Really? That sounds a bit revisionist to me, but what do I know - I voted for Reagan (and Nixon). Do you happen to have something mainstream that backs that up? You're saying the billions Reagan gave to the Afghani mujahedeen to rip the Soviets a new orifice, and which they did, had no effect?

The flawed nuclear plant design that the Soviets were allowed to "steal" had no effect? The increased missle design research on the Soviet's part as a result of "Star Wars" was just a figment of the CIA's imagination? I'm shocked.

He simply used American fervor to his own political advantage.

Funny, I don't recall any fervor wrt the USSR. The cold war had been going on for over thirty years, and people were used to it. It was the age of detente, and the American people accepted it, even if Reagan thought it was Soviet ploy. I don't recall any fervor at all until the Berlin Wall came down. People were stunned. I remember the Berlin airlifts. The wall had always been there for many of us, and we never expected to see it open. You seem to remember a far different time than I do.

Re:Accuracy

[Skim123]

You have some good points, ones that I've thought about in the past and surely agree with you. Never claimed capitalism to be a panacea.

I'm referring to welfare, food stamps, somewhat to social security, yes. Without those, a segment of our population *does not eat*.

Granted, but I think this is more true now than in the past, thanks to the welfare state. For example, my parents live in a small town. A member in their Church congregation was having some hard times, he had lost his job recently, his mobile home burned down, etc. Now, you could say that without these government programs, he would be SOL. He'd be sleeping on the street corner, eating other people's garbage to stay alive. But this didn't happen. People in the Church helped out. They donated items he lost when his home burned down; they offerred him a place to stay while he got his things back in order. They had him over for dinner so he would not go hungry.

Now, you might say that this is a contrived example, that this doesn't happen in our modern world enough. True, I won't argue there, but I wonder if part of this decrease in neighbors watching out for one another is because of welfare. Because of a "the government will take care of it" attitude. (Again, I'm not saying 100% of the people "back in the day" were helped by Church/charity - there definitely were those that fell through the cracks, as there are even those today, even with governmental aid.)

Those who capitalism has rewarded can buy *better* computers than the free government computers, but *everyone* has a computer

From whom will they be buying these computers? I'd imagine once the government started giving away computers for free many of the existing hardware companies - which exist on thin margins - would shrivel up and die. You might still have a company or two around like Apple, one that can successfully market to the Yuppies and convince them to overspend to be trendy, but fewer choices for the consumer means higher prices for those who do want to do their own; less competition means crappier quality all around, even for the expensive options.

To wrap things up on this thread, I don't think capitalism should be necessarily followed to the T. That is, laizze-faire capitalism works but at too great a cost, IMHO. But in the same thought, we should be remiss to ditch capitalism and to hand over tasks to the government that might be better served by the free market. What many people have a hard time with is objetively stepping back and thinking about the pros and cons of taking away some governmental role/agency and moving it back to the free market. Government is like a black hole - once something gets moved there, it's almost impossible to get it back out of their hands. And for some strange reason, many people have a very strong reaction to merely suggesting that such programs might be better handled by the private sector.

Re:Accuracy

[Kiryat Malachi]

I understand your points, certainly, and I'd be the last to advocate government-mandated computers.

I live in a large, large city, and grew up in a medium sized one, which might influence how I see these things, but its rare to see the sort of situation you mention. More common was seeing people on the corner sparing for change, sleeping in alleys, so forth. The thing is, instead of relying on people's good will, welfare mandates it. I don't have enough faith in people to expect them to take care of everyone - I spent time in the South with people who would welcome a troubled white family into their home, but wouldn't dream of helping out a black family with a damn thing, and I've seen inner city black families that go the other way. Charity just isn't suitable to provide the last-ditch net.

From whom will they be buying the computers? I'm assuming the government isn't going to give away G5 Power Macs. I'm figuring that, much like most social service programs, they'll be getting the bare bones - a P2-266 or some such, the sort of thing we regularly see posted on Slashdot as appropriate for 3rd world countries to receive. But enough to get a large portion of the real benefits of owning a computer, while not anything even close to the top of the line. Just like guv'mint cheese will never be mistaken for a fine brie.

So who would they buy computers from? I'm going to assume that, even if the computers available were more expensive, better quality computers would remain available, and their quality probably wouldn't drop much. Would $300 Walmart machines disappear? $500 Dell specials? Yeah, probably. But I doubt the people who currently buy Alienware boxes, who currently buy Apples and even high-end white boxes, would be satisfied with guv'mint silicon. I don't think there's any real evidence for your assertion that a government-mandated, government-provided, security net backup for some assumed "need" eliminates more expensive capitalist choices. Further, if the government can't build those computers cheaper than private industry, they can (and should!) allow private industry to build them, buy them from industry, and give them out as a baseline. Similar to how we handle defense - the US government doesn't build the hardware, we train and employ the people who use it. If computers were baseline, buying the computers and running the distribution and training infrastructure would be an appropriate way to run the program.

I see no reason to believe that a free market approach would successfully achieve *comprehensive* education. Being as we have, as a country, decided that everyone deserves a basic education, the free market approach to it seems designed to fail our desires.

Re:Accuracy

[C10H14N2]

My point is that those who claim that Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union conveniently ignore decades of work done by others, both American and otherwise. By 1981, the damage had been done. Reagan could have done nothing and the Soviet Union would today still be nothing more than an article of history.

You might as well claim that Louis XVI was responsible for the downfall of the British Empire in America...

Re:Accuracy

[Trevin]

It may be worth noting that not all Muslims share the same point of view. There seem to be almost as many divisions in the Islam religion as there are among Christians.

Re:Accuracy

[Skim123]

I think we agree more than we disagree.

I see no reason to believe that a free market approach would successfully achieve *comprehensive* education. Being as we have, as a country, decided that everyone deserves a basic education, the free market approach to it seems designed to fail our desires.

This I agree with - as society we have dictated that public education is something everyone should have. Great. Fine. Government program, all around. No complaints here. My whole point in starting this thread stemmed from the fact that it seemed like the original poster (you?) alluded that without government education there would be only schooling for the elite. I still think my point on that matter holds water, that if schooling were privatized there might be those who fall through the cracks, but to assume that only the upper crust would be educated is absurd. There would be schools of different quality; true, the poorer folks might receive a lower quality education than the rich folks, but to assume that they would receive no education is erroneous, IMO. Capitalism works - choices would spring up for satisfying the eudcational needs of those in varying income brackets. That was my initial point, and one I stand by.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh... according to this article... there IS hope for future generations....

Re:Accuracy

[Kiryat Malachi]

I don't think only the upper crust would received schooling (wasn't me said that, boss), but I'd be willing to bet most of what's traditionally considered "lower class" would not.

And there are a *lot* of lower class people out there.

Re:Accuracy

[Skim123]

You're right, you weren't the one who said: "Get rid of the public schools and you will see a more abused and ill-educated populace than we've had in this country for over a century. Unless of course we all forget about those people who are working at McDonald's and Walmart and can't afford to send their kids to private schools since they don't really matter anyway." That was said by eno2001 at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137903&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=146&mode=thread&cid=1153358 2

Re:Accuracy

[Anarcho-Goth]

Personally I don't care of it is GWB or Hillary that wants to tatoo 666 on my forehead.

How about freedom for everyone, including stupid assholes that call themselves conservative?

Those that would give up essential liberty for illusions of safety deserve neither.

Maybe he does deserve neither.

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

I fear totalitarianism from Hillary just as much from the shrub.

Re:Accuracy

[ezeri]

I think you need to read up on the Atkins diet a little more. It has nothing to do with the glycogen stored in your cells at all. Those only last a day or two at best anyway, so the best way to rid yourself of them would be to just drink water for a couple days. The reason the Atkins diet works is due to the way our body produces fat. As blood sugar levels rise, out body releases insulin. The insulin takes sugars out of the blood and convert them to fat. Taking most of the carb out of the diet keeps the blood sugar levels from spiking (caused entirely by carbs and sugars), and thus the body will produce far less fat, and will result in a net loss of body fat over time.

Re:Accuracy

[whovian]

In retrospect, my comments about initial weight loss and glycogen had more to do with the induction phase. Eliminating the blood glucose roller coaster is a goal that isn't terribly unique to Atkins. "Good" carbs (complex carbs) don't cause it; it's the "bad" carbs (simple sugars).

Your description of insulin is a bit inaccurate. Insulin doesn't do the conversion of sugars to fat per se. Insulin is needed to transport glucose into almost every kind of cell. Brain and liver cells do not require insulin for this. Inside the cell insulin then activates several enzymes that are involved in glycogen synthesis. If/when the amount of glycogen is sufficiently large, the excess glucose is then redirected to fatty acid synthesis. Liver cells synthesize one part of the triglyceride molecule while fat cells synthesize the other parts.

So with regard to fat loss, the upshot is that a diet whose sugars (if any) consisted entirely of simple sugars would cause the person not to accumulate fat if 1) that person does not eat too much simple sugar, and 2) does not eat more than maintenance calories overall.

Re:Accuracy

[Jason Ford]

Personally I don't care of it is GWB or Hillary that wants to tatoo 666 on my forehead.

I'm with you on that one. Many of us are not represented in the government, and don't care for any of the candidates that are offered. And, many of us don't care for the system itself.

I'm hoping that the shock of a new party in office makes some of them reconsider their patriotism and their jingoism. Maybe it will help a few people to open their eyes to the problems inherent in our system.

Re:Accuracy

[Doc Ruby]

Or we run democracies too poorly to stop people from abusing the "sharing" aspect of communism. Then again, what's "communism"? Real communism doesn't have a state at all, so no "democracy". Canada, Britain, and most of Europe have had successful socialist democracies for over a century.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Having recently had a long talk with GOD, she says she has no problems with gays. Maybe you need to stop judging people.

Re:Accuracy

[TheDormouse]

Stupider and stupidest are legitimate comparative and superlative forms of the adjective stupid.

The general rule in English for comparatives and superlatives is -er and -est. If it creates a word that is difficult to read, to pronounce, or to otherwise understand, then resorting to more and most is appropriate.

But you probably just cringed at my split infinitive and beginning a sentence with but and will just crawl back into your pedantic hole in the ground.

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

My point is that those who claim that Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union conveniently ignore decades of work done by others, both American and otherwise.

Not really. Truman pulled the trigger and gets the credit/blame for ending the war in the Japanese theater although FDR started the A-weapons program and led the country through almost all of the war.

By 1981, the damage had been done. Reagan could have done nothing and the Soviet Union would today still be nothing more than an article of history.

By early 1945, the damage had been done, and even the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with terms less restrictive than unconditional. Truman could have done nothing, but then the Soviet Union might still be around and be bordering the English Channel. Or Truman could have given Patton his wishes and let him try to roll back our Soviet "allies" to their borders. Perhaps the USSR would have collapsed much sooner. Playing what-if games doesn't prove anything.

You might as well claim that Louis XVI was responsible for the downfall of the British Empire in America...

You may as well claim Monty was responsible for the fall of the Germans. To reiterate, a house of cards can stand forever until someone pushes it over. The credit goes to the person who pushes. If you don't like Reagan, just say so, and leave it at that.

Re:Accuracy

[dvdeug]

To reiterate, a house of cards can stand forever until someone pushes it over. The credit goes to the person who pushes. If you don't like Reagan, just say so, and leave it at that.

So if you're shot by a dozen people in an alley, we should blame the cat that walked across your chest and pushed you over the edge? Or the guy who fired the last bullet and shot you in the toe?

In any case, why Reagan? He was hardly the only person to pushing on the Soviet Union when it fell; in fact, the biggest push was by the military coup. If we have to ascribe all credit to the immediate proximate cause, I don't think Reagan should get any at all; it was the coup leaders that collapsed the government.

Re:Accuracy

[alpha_foobar]

but its very similar to marmite, which is british..

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

So if you're shot by a dozen people in an alley, we should blame the cat that walked across your chest and pushed you over the edge? Or the guy who fired the last bullet and shot you in the toe?

Lincoln/Grant got credit for winning the Civil War. Truman got credit for WWII (at least in the U.S.), so yeah, it seems to work that way, especially when the last guy is in charge of the hit on you and toe-caps your sorry carcass. (See all the Godfather movies for details.)

In any case, why Reagan? He was hardly the only person to pushing on the Soviet Union when it fell; in fact, the biggest push was by the military coup. If we have to ascribe all credit to the immediate proximate cause, I don't think Reagan should get any at all; it was the coup leaders that collapsed the government.

I'm not the one looking at the "immediate proximate cause". If I were, I'd be giving credit to the bullet in the toe. My view is a little wider than that.

Who was the USSR's self-admitted enemy, and who were they defending against? It wasn't the Belgians (no offense to any Belgians who happen to be reading old Slashdot archives). The Russian rhetoric about Reagan being a dangerous cowboy was a good indicator. There weren't many other people spending billions of dollars arming people who were engaging and beating the Soviet military. Without the constant pressure from without, how would any coup have succeeded against a successful politburo? Who was it that applied the most pressure on that house of cards?

I was going to use my other account to respond for the humor factor, but why bother? :)

Re:Accuracy

[dvdeug]

Truman got credit for WWII (at least in the U.S.)

That's funny, because I don't remember that at all. Truman brought the war to the end, but FDR, Churchill and Stalin get credit for winning the war.

Without the constant pressure from without, how would any coup have succeeded against a successful politburo?

Possibly. The amount of money spent on the military by Gorbechev was less than his predessors, and the simple existance of more successful societies put a lot of stress on the system.

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

That's funny, because I don't remember that at all. Truman brought the war to the end, but FDR, Churchill and Stalin get credit for winning the war.

Then I'd guess you're not an American. Truman dropped the bomb and gained credit for the quick end to hostilities and ending the war (as well as the eternal blame for using atomic weapons). As a post-war baby, I grew up with it. Churchill was considered a useful (if needy) ally, while Stalin was already viewed with contempt as an opportunistic, land-grabbing dictator.

The amount of money spent on the military by Gorbechev was less than his predessors, and the simple existance of more successful societies put a lot of stress on the system.

There may be some truth in that, since the military was unhappy because they were getting whacked in Afghanistan. The question then becomes whether it was the constant pressure from the U.S. that caused the problems. While searching for some support for your claim, I came across this , which somewhat agrees in the second paragraph. However, the first paragraph points to the cause. Cause and effect.

Re:Accuracy

[C10H14N2]

I might take you seriously if you had yet, after so much wind, name ANYONE inside Russia or any of the former SSRs who had any role whatsoever in the series of events in question without resorting to "oh, the US gave money to xyz." The USSR (hell, even greater Russia under the Czars) suffered from internal pressure from day one. It was doomed from the beginning. Having been to the former USSR, lived there, studied there, I can certainly say that the view is quite different beyond the armchair and your ideas are not entirely shared on the ground.

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

It was doomed from the beginning. Having been to the former USSR, lived there, studied there, I can certainly say that the view is quite different beyond the armchair and your ideas are not entirely shared on the ground.

I already said my viewpoint was an American one. As for the rest, I see no need to repeat myself. We are all doomed, doomed, yes doomed (sorry, couldn't help myself) from the beginning, and you make no point other than you don't like my opinion or the opinion of others. Okay, consider it noted and filed in the proper place: C10H14N2 believes we should wait for entropy to solve all our problems.

In Reagan's words:

"The Soviet economy was being held together by baling wire. In Poland and other Eastern-bloc countries, the economies were also a mess, and there were rumblings of nationalist fevor within the captive Soviet empire. If they didn't make some changes, it seemed clear to me that in time that Communism would collapse of its own weight, and I wondered how we as a nation could use these cracks in the Soviet system to accelerate the process of collapse."

Historically, it's obvious that Reagan saw an opportunity to bring down the Soviet Union and worked towards that end. My point was and is that Reagan toppled the house of cards. You have offered nothing except your repeated personal opinion. My attention span has been reached - you know how old folks are.

Re:Accuracy

[C10H14N2]

I already said my viewpoint was an American one. You have offered nothing except your repeated personal opinion. I'm an American as well and, yes, interpretations of facts are all "opinions," including yours. Quelle suprise.

Re:Accuracy

[vsprintf]

I'm an American as well and, yes, interpretations of facts are all "opinions," including yours. Quelle suprise.

I assumed you were American from your usage. You were claiming some higher viewpoint from your supposed foreign visit. What surprise? I took French also, but it's pretty rusty. Facts are facts. Interpretations of facts are not the same thing. You still have offered nothing in support of your opinion, while I have presented supporting links. Why do you continue this? Do you think repetition will somehow validate your view or make me agree? If so, you are doubly mistaken.

Re:Accuracy

[Austerity Empowers]

Unless you have more guns, friends and power than I do, anarchy is bad for you.

Re:Accuracy

[Jason Ford]

This comment reflects a decidedly incomplete understanding of anarchism. Please consider reading a book like Emma Goldman's 'Anarchism and Other Essays', or Daniel Guerin's 'Anarchism', or perhaps even Bakunin's 'God and the State.'

Anarchism is not the absence of government or the presence of chaos. Anarchism is about equality, liberty, and solidarity. If you believe that people are deserving of equal treatment, that they should be free to behave in any manner they so choose without limiting the liberty of others, and that people, in general, are better off working together than working apart, you might very well be an anarchist already.

Anarchism has an answer for the question you are asking, if you only look for it.

Re:Accuracy

[Fjandr]

So you've read the Patriot Act? That's funny, because most of it is changes to existing laws, making it unintelligible without making reference to each of the other laws changed. I guess if you have enough time and resources you could make sense of all the changes. However, according to a friend of mine who's a Vice President at a major US bank, just putting together the portions of it that change banking regulations took weeks of study and thousands of pages of text.

Re:Accuracy

[Leo McGarry]

However, according to a friend of mine who's a Vice President at a major US bank, just putting together the portions of it that change banking regulations took weeks of study and thousands of pages of text.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. First of all, you don't have to read the actual text of the amending act that was passed by Congress. That's full of "insert here" and "delete there" and "change this to that" stuff. What smart people do is go read the relevant amended parts of the US Code. You know, that big-ass book that holds all our country's laws? Open it up. Read it. Learn.

"Weeks of study" my ass. Maybe if you're just mastering English, or if you're getting the Code a page at a time by UPS Ground.

Re:Accuracy

[Fjandr]

Notice the term "regulations." Legal changes always have trickle-down effects that far exceed the actual bulk of the law. Most of the effects that are felt by individuals will be as a result of changed regulations in regard to the actual legal changes, rather than the legal changes themselves.

As far as the USC goes (and CFR for that matter), it is labrythine in its construction. It is very time intensive to review changes on a massive scale, especially when reviewing the possible ramifications of subjects as sensitive and far-reaching as those dealt with in this particular legislation. It's really not my problem if you believe that to be bullshit. I stand by my statements.

Re:Accuracy

[Leo McGarry]

If we were talking about banking regulations, you might have a point. But we're not, and we never were. You're welcome to stand beside whatever the hell you want. In this case, the thing next to which you're posing your precious visage is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Of course they don't know, we don't allow them to!

[garcia]

The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.

Now this is NOT an insignificant study. 100k students and only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories? Excuse me? This misinformation must be coming from somewhere... Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?

About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.

Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material. Forcing various institutions to enable filters on content. Yeah, it can't stop ALL the content out there but it is getting closer and closer to that. With the scare tactics and every parent believing that every sensationalist news "story" on the TV is GOING TO AFFECT THEIR CHILDREN they are pushing this crap through without thinking about the consequences.

The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.

Of course they don't. Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams. If you did not give the teacher what they wanted you were given a poor grade. It wasn't until college (and I remember our second semester English professor being appalled) that I was able to write how I felt about a topic and back it up with real information. The professor would grade you on your research and your proof and not how he/she particularly felt the topic should be supported.

How can we expect high-school aged kids to think that they should be given a chance to practice their First Amendment rights when they are under the constant force feeding of information?

More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.

That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers. They want people who follow the status quo. Why stir the pot when you can just report the silly rumors, scare tactics and sensationalism, and car chases above California?

put yourself in thier shoes

[PrinceAshitaka]

How should students understand the first amendment right when they yet do not have those rights in public schools? (and I am not saying that they should have them.) for example; "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." That is not surprising as they in thier school newspaper do not have the ability to pubilsh without teacher approval and "About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't" That is not surprising as thier internet use at school is severly restricted in what they can see. Anouther example is with only 83% of the students saying that expression of unpopular views is acceptible, coming from a very nondemocratic enviorment in schoolI can see how that is easily the situation. Students are under the heel of school officials. although, I am a while out of high school and this was just my experience.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[damian cosmas]

"How should students understand the first amendment right when they yet do not have those rights in public schools?"

You're right and wrong (more the latter than the former, I'm afraid).

Wrong: Tinker vs. Des Moines: (students ability to freely protest Vietnam War upheld)

Right (sort of): Hazlewood case. You're wrong there because the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment a bit differently than you. (principal's right to censor student publications)

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[brian.glanz]

These U.S. high school students apparently understand more about their world, and perhaps also the real world, than the adults who are surprised at their answers. From our "Patriot Act" to the realities of liability for online "defamation," laws intended and/or agreed to by our federal government make a mockery of the 1st Ammendment's intent (and that of the collective Bill of Rights).

Contrary to TFA which supposes high school students aren't paying attention and high schools are poor educators, maybe high schoolers are excellent students, of reality, that is. The environment in which they live often assumes their guilt, such as unlimited rights of administration to search lockers and personal possessions, and other examples as PrinceAshitaka adds. From that perspective and from their generally lowly social position, high school students are going to be highly suspicious of authority by default. Taking a critical look at the "real world" awaiting them, it is not surprising that high school students would primarily see more of the same that they experience every day.

The difference? In high school, no one BSes you about it -- hey, kid, we can search your locker any time we want to, and you can't do anything about it, including that you need a pass to use the bathroom if you want to go cry about it. In the real world though, the government does bother to BS you about your liberties, which you were promised and maybe you or your ancestors fought for and you certainly paid for, but which you do not truly have.

Right on, PrinceAshitaka. Whether answering the survey with high school itself in mind or even if focusing on the "real world," certainly their context would have influenced their opinions. It's long since time for more of the adults surprised by this to wake up. Perhaps we can take this as a sign that the future, general American populace will have better BS detectors than our current lot.

BG

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[ImaLamer]

"Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." That is not surprising as they in thier school newspaper do not have the ability to pubilsh without teacher approval and "About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't" That is not surprising as thier internet use at school is severly restricted in what they can see.

But it all goes back to bad education. The American History/Governement teachers aren't doing their jobs. In high-school we did a month of Supreme Court cases... one of the most important parts of history and government.

We did the First Amendment to death in that time and learned a lot. Learning about big cases that tested the limits of the Constitution is not only fun (to me) but it also allows you to see how free you really are. But back on topic, we learned why you can say anything on Slashdot and why you can't publish anything in your school's newspaper (because it belongs to the school).

It's not the school environment it's the teaching staff!

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Wavicle]

Wrong: Tinker vs. Des Moines: (students ability to freely protest Vietnam War upheld)

Wrong: Tinker vs. Des Moines did not grant students the right to freely protest the Vietnam War. It gave students the right to protest provided the protest was a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance.

In Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court said "we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." That doesn't sound like they limited censorship just to a principal (and considering hazelwood has been applied to universities, wouldn't make much sense).

What was your point anyway? You did not rebut that students exist under substantially less freedom than the first amendment provides

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[utlemming]

From the article: "The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority."

I don't know about your high school experience, but when I was in HS seven years ago, I was not afforded anything in terms of rights. The interesting thing was they would preach to us for a week on "Student Rights and Responsabilities" in order to cover their butts. As I recall we did not enjoy free speech (no, I am not saying that I was trying to get up and preach on the tables of the lunch room. There was strong censorship in our assignments about what we could right about. When it came to classroom discussion on political ideas, I was censored multiple times by a teacher. Anything a student might want to distribute required administration aproval, and they never approved anything except for student elections.), free expression (although not me, where of straight black was strictly prohibited), and even free assembly (the clubs had to recieve school board approval, and a group that had any sort of semblence of leadership and a cause is considered a club. With out offical sanctions, it would lead to censorship) was restricted.

The interesting thing is the balance and the role of what school systems are supposed to accomplish. Part of that goal is for the school systems to provide political education -- schools are considered the primary source of teaching citizenship and to acclimate them to the social norms of politics. When the school system teaches you by example that repression, although well meaning, is acceptable for one thing, it teaches it is acceptable for other things. If you teach people that repressing one freedom, ie censoring student writings, is acceptable to prevent indecent material from propagating through the school, it is easy to follow that people will think that it is acceptable to supress free speech in the name of "Homeland Security."

It is something that has been debated for a long time -- how much "freedom" do you allow students in High School? Do you suspend the First Amendment while they are in their High School years, restrict them or let them excerise them. My personal feeling as to the reason that they are able to get away with it, is because High School students, generally speaking are unable to effectively fight the system -- they don't have money, and few parents care if Little Jimmy can't write about something or express himself.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[damian cosmas]

Your blanket assertion that students lack First Amendment rights was fallacious at best, primarily because you lack the constitutional authority to interpret the First Amendment. I provided an example in which the Supreme Court has supported free speech in schools and an example in which they indicated that a right that you seem to think exists actually doesn't. The latter is a question of semantics. You claim that students are being denied rights, while the Supreme Court seems to say that said rights simply don't exist in the first place.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[TheFlyingGoat]

It's not the school environment it's the teaching staff!

That's such BS. At my high school there were a large majority of students that just didn't care about learning. They didn't want to be there, but since they had to be they decided to spend that time socializing and screwing around. If I don't remember how to factor a polynomial properly, is it my teacher's fault? It could be, but it's far more likely that I wasn't paying attention during that part of class, or that I just forgot about it since then.

Here in Wisconsin, a government class is required at the high school level. They cover a range of topics, and the declaration of independance, constitution, and bill of rights are each covered in-depth. I'm sure I could do very well on that survey, but I guarantee that most of my classmates would fail just as poorly as the ones in the Knight Foundation study.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[nsasch]

SourceForge is blocked from my school.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Wavicle]

Your blanket assertion that students lack First Amendment rights was fallacious at best, primarily because you lack the constitutional authority to interpret the First Amendment.

Do you even know what "fallacious" means?

You claim that students are being denied rights, while the Supreme Court seems to say that said rights simply don't exist in the first place.

That statement just destroyed your own argument. You just said that the supreme court seems to say that students don't have the rights, then you say I couldn't say that because I'm not a supreme court justice (imagine the horror of a lawyer supporting his case using case law if that lawyer hadn't been a justice) and further you back up and say that the supreme court has given some first amendment rights to students.

So do the rights exist or not?

Read the two cases you cite. The supreme court gives schools the ability to curtail rights of students given to them in the bill of rights, provided that doing so is of legitimate pedagogical concern.

They don't say those rights never existed. In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier the issue was students not adequately protecting the privacy of people their articles were covering. In Tinker v. Des Moines the question was whether or not students wearing arm bands legitimately threatened the school environment. In the first case they said yes, students may not fully appreciate the damage their article can do so the censorship was permissible. In the second case they said Des Moines School district did not have a bonafide concern of the arm bands suddenly causing unrest so the school district could not impede the first amendement.

And lastly: I didn't write the gp post to begin with.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[learn fast]

for example; "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." That is not surprising as they in thier school newspaper do not have the ability to pubilsh without teacher approval

They should not be drawing an analogy between school adminstration and the Unites States Government. This is the BILL OF RIGHTS we're talking about, one of our (ostensibly) most important civic values. Just because you have to ask permission to go to the bathroom, do students think they have to do that outside of school? Obviously not. This is much more serious than just drawing a specious analogy.

"About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't" That is not surprising as thier internet use at school is severly restricted in what they can see.

Again, the school administration should not be analogized to the United States government. Do the students think that they will have to take an orange bus to work some day? Obviously they do not. Just because internet access in the school library doesn't mean some huge government agency in the bellows of Washington regulates everything you see and do, like we live in some Orwellian dystopia. This is absurd.

Anouther example is with only 83% of the students saying that expression of unpopular views is acceptible, coming from a very nondemocratic enviorment in schoolI can see how that is easily the situation.

WHY SHOULD THEY THINK WE DON'T LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY? Why should it mean that because a school is nondemocratic, then the government of the United States must be nondemocratic?

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[brandonY]

As insightful as this may be, I still feel compelled to say something sarcastic about your need to return to school based on your spelling of the word their.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[ChrisMaple]

How should students understand the first amendment right when they yet do not have those rights in public schools?

There's no necessary connection. Let me show you by example:

How am I going to understand how high explosives work when you won't let me play with them?

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Hyperspac]

I have to agree. I found it sad even in college when I had to take a senior semenar course with the express goal of making me a good citizen, while my campus did not allow me a number of basic rights every citizen has.

Claiming that it's a private organization not the government oppressing you doesn't really make it any less of a problem. Why should I have to give up basic freedoms, just becuase they have something I need? (In that case an education.) Is a right much good it you have to sign it away to do anything?

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

>How should students understand the first amendment right when they yet do not have those rights in >public schools?
[...]
>school newspaper do not have the ability to pubilsh without teacher approval[...]
>internet use at school is severly restricted in what they can see

Guess what, I can't my boss an asshole or surf pr0n at work and that does not limit my constitutional rights. The only diffrence is kids don't really know what is and what isn't appropriate and try doing such stuff at school instead of after school using their own resources.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Ninwa]

They will have better BS detectors but it will be that generation doing the BS, too. In the end it doesn't make a difference. -N

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, since the school is a government institution and the teachers are government employees. How can it still be democratic when they can selectively cut off access to your rights in an institution that you are mandated to attend. If they can do it for 18 years of your life is it really that big of a change to extend it by another 18?

And I do believe that the school can take disciplinary action against things you do outside of school too.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[brian.glanz]

N,

You're obviously right first off, that both the BS detectors and the BS are getting better. On the BS getting better: look at phishing, for an obvious example, and maybe at big-time political press conferences for another. Schemes to BS us in all directions are trending hard toward ever more psychological and technological sophistication.

... but again on the flip side, and this is a big but: tools and thereby ability to discern are progressing I think more quickly. Look at blogospheric and even individual bloggers' successes in embarrassing for-profit media conglomerates, or the saturation of Chinese email Inboxes with spam written to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. The Chinese Communist Party didn't have much choice when everyone learned in spam and in SMS what SARS might really be -- they more or less came clean and certainly, only because they had to.

In every day life, it is increasingly difficult to lie. It's harder to get away with breaking laws, period; but even common, white lying is getting complicated. You tell your mom your bus was late and the deli was OUT of milk, sorry mom! -- in fact, she can see your bus was on-time, and she can see the deli has milk in stock. Better, she can corroborate by seeing where the bus is now and how long it took to get there, and she can sit there and order milk from the deli and have it brought to the door. It may seem out of context but it is not, that the high school generation bares all on blogs and thinks much less of the exposure than an older crowd does.

We have been in the "information age" for a while now; thanks to new tools and the insight of enough young people growing up with them, we are entering the "awareness age." Not only will there be ever more information, but also analysis and awareness of its meaning. I observe that BS is already more difficult to pass, and I predict that it will become moreso. What would society be like if no one in it could pass off a lie? In the end, I think your idea that no difference will be made is already too pessimistic -- current trends are complicating BS, and I think will reduce it much more significantly over time. The increasing willingness to tell more and to tell more, more truthfully among the young is another indication that social perspectives on truth and exposure are already shifting to accommodate the future reality.

BG

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[admiralh]

It is something that has been debated for a long time -- how much "freedom" do you allow students in High School?

IANAL, so take with the appropriate grain of salt.

First, remember that until age 18, you are still by law a minor, and so you don't enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship. The school is legally responsible for you, and can be held liable for anything that you do, or is done to you. Our litigious society has forced them to impose these Draconian rules and regulations.

Now after age 18, the rules change, and the school may not actually have much legal ground to stand on, though they may not have to give you your diploma, either. When I was graduating (23(Yikes!) years ago) the school administration said if anyone threw their hats at graduation they would not receive their dimploma. I don't think that was enforceable, but we were sufficiently cowed so no one did it. And we were all over 18.

That said though, I agree with you about the lack of respect shown towards teenagers by society. And lack of respect breeds lack of respect in return. I do a lot of work with high schoolers and try to treat them with respect, but so many people today don't, and I don't know how to change it.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[terrymr]

Defamation laws exist to prevent your exercise of your rights from denying somebody else theirs.

Imagine if your local paper ran a story tomorrow saying you were a child molestor, you'd want something done about it, right ?

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[jc42]

Pretty accurate summary.

If I were asked such things, I'd just point out that the Bush administration can and does "disappear" people, holding them incommunicado for years without charges or trial. Yeah; the courts have said "You can't do that." The response was announcing a new program to build a prison to house such prisoners for the rest of their lives.

Under such circumstances, the Constitution is little more than a quaint and irrelevant historical document, like the Geneva Conventions.

(There is a question of whether, all rhetoric aside, there is any country where the actual situation is any different. If the authorities in, say, Canada or Sweden wanted someone to disappear, what would happen? How would we know?)

Now, this is probably guaranteed to get a "troll" rating. But the question is serious. How would we know?

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Jerf]

How am I going to understand how high explosives work when you won't let me play with them?

Nothing like a counterexample that just proves your opponents point all the more.

I am aware of how high explosives work in the academic sense. But I could not use them for any practical purpose, and I wouldn't trust anyone who hasn't used them to do something like take a building down. They don't have real, practical understanding.

Since experience says I have to spell this out: Schoolchildren are aware of free speech in the academic sense (if that). But they've got no real understanding of it, as evidenced by the horribly wrong answers they are giving to questions that ask them to apply knowledge rather than parrot answers.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[jc42]

How am I going to understand how high explosives work when you won't let me play with them?

Funny, but not actually a very good comparison. If you were to take a class in explosives, either military or construction, it would be a while before you would be allowed to play with them. The reason should be pretty obvious, and no student with any sense would want to start by blowing things up. First you'd want a long course teaching the theory of how explosives work, and how to calculate the size and effects of a blast. This would include a lot of information about the dangers, including the variability of a lot of the ingredients.

So, if you are going to use this as the basis of an argument, the obvious parallel would be that kids in school shouldn't be permitted free expression. They should first understand the theories and the dangers.

And, of course, lots of people will way "Exactly." But they get it wrong, too, since few things kids can say aren't really any danger to anyone.

So this may qualify as a good wisecrack, but it's not very informative. Unless, of course, you use it as the starting point for a discussion ...

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[DwarfGoanna]

Man, I'm sorry, but I think in order to have a competent educational system we have to asssume (gasp) kids don't want to be there, and would rather be doing something else and work from there. If you've ever gotten a kid to eat (and as a result like) something he at first refused to touch, you know it's possible to do.

One a related note, It's my dog's fault that he doesn't enjoy the works of Vonnegut the way I do. Every time I sit him down in front of a book or synopsize one in a long and boring manner, he reverts to this annoying play behavior, which is his default mode for learning. Who is the idiot in this story? =)

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[goon america]

Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." That is not surprising as they in thier school newspaper do not have the ability to pubilsh without teacher approval

So, how can you explain this:

* 49% thought newspapers should not be able to publish without government approval

* 58% thought that school newspapers should be able to report without approval from school authorities

How could they think that it was more important that their school newspaper was unfettered by school authorities than a "real" newspaper by the government?

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[syukton]

Actually, a great deal of wisdom comes from experience. Take the color green, for example. Suppose you're locked in a room from birth and green light is filtered out of all the light sources available to you, and you've never really seen green. You've read about it, you know what green is and what things are green. You know what wavelength the light is. But you haven't actually experienced green.

How much understanding of green can you have without experiencing it? Similarly, how much understanding can anyone be expected to have in a given subject without any experience in that subject?

Kids can't speak their mind anywhere. Not at home to mom and dad, and certainly not at school. Kids can't put whatever they want in their writing. Kids don't have any rights, so I find it to be of trivial importance that they don't know what their rights are. Technically, a kid going to the corner store and buying a candy bar is illegal because a minor cannot legally enter into a binding contract, and the exchange of goods or services for money is a legally binding contract of sorts. Once they're in college and they take a Law class or a Political Science class, then they'll start to learn about their rights, because they'll be able to exercise them.

Tangentially, I think that the decline of America is rooted in the public school system. Kids aren't taught democracy by example, they're taught dictatorship by example. They aren't taught about justice and fairness or a right to counsel, they're taught that those in power do whatever the fuck they want. Kids aren't encouraged to speak freely or to assemble in groups at whatever point they see fit; they're taught to walk in straight lines and fit into neatly categorized boxes. Kids are largely treated like sheep ("sheeple") and we're wondering why they don't understand the constitution? We don't even grant them the rights established by the constitution until they're 18! That's kind of like asking a 22 year old how he feels about having alzheimers. It's a totally unreasonable question because he doesn't have it yet; give him some time, then ask again. Similarly with the constitution question, ask people in their mid-twenties what their constitutional rights are and you'll find that in the years following highschool, some people have wisened up a bit.

You aren't being insightful, you're trying to say that book smarts are all that matters and experience is of negligible value, and that simply isn't true, rather it's the complete opposite which is true.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[syukton]

If more than half of your waking hours were dominated by something which dictated every last bit of what you think, read, eat, and do, I'm fairly certain that you yourself may start to have democratic doubts. When it comes to work, you can pick your job and quit at any time. School isn't like that; it's like prison. You have to go. You have to go no matter how much that kid keeps punching you in the halls and the administration turns the other cheek. You have to go no matter how much anxiety you have about the way Mr. so-and-so looks up your skirt whenever you have to pick up a pencil. You can't quit, like you can with a job. You can't just get fed up with the bullshit and say "hey, had enough bullshit over here."

No, as a child you have no rights and you just have to keep bending over and taking whatever the world wants to thrust at you. They think that we don't live in a democracy because they don't live in a democracy. Their parents are dictatorial, their school administration are dictatorial. The environment in which they exist is rigid and controlled. On virtue of being young they're denied opportunity and, when they're old enough, given higher insurance rates. How much does this really feel like freedom when you're a kid? It doesn't. It feels like prison. You know, prison, the place where we send the bad people to. And here's all of our children, herded up into buses with no seatbelts (they'll buckle up convicts, but not kids. think about that one) and collected in a location where dogma can be endlessly drilled into their heads for six hours or so, then they're sent home so they can cry a little bit before they're made to do it again. Is this how you want to introduce a consciousness to life? "Here, go do spmething you hate every weekday no matter what."

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Step one of my plan is complete.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[plumpy]

Man, I'm sorry, but I think in order to have a competent educational system we have to asssume (gasp) kids don't want to be there, and would rather be doing something else and work from there. If you've ever gotten a kid to eat (and as a result like) something he at first refused to touch, you know it's possible to do.

An interesting thing I found recently is the George Lucas Educational Foundation (yes, that George Lucas). He started it because he wasn't happy with his school experience and so it's mission is to find innovative ways to help kids want to learn and teachers want to teach.

They have a magazine called Edutopia , which you can read online or subscribe to the print version. I think they have RSS feeds, too.

The cover article this month is about the sham that is the textbook publishing industry and offers some suggestions to make it better. It's an interesting read. (This article is actually how I found out about the foundation.)

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[TGK]

I don't think the Alzheimers argument works. Ask a 22 year old about Alzheimers and he'll say "I haven't had it, haven't experianced it, don't know much about it"

Come back 60 years later and he'll say "Who are you? Why are you living under my sink? Take out the trash and stop moving my.... did someone change the channel on the radio? Ruby! So good to see you and... uh... Who are you?"

Maybe Parkinsons would have been a better topic.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[MichiganDan]

The cult of standardized testing has made it virtually impossible for teachers to teach this sort of thing, much less teach it well. In most states, the curriculum is decided by a board of education with comments from various people pushing political agendas.

The result is that students are being imbued with memes (intentional oxymoron there) rather than understanding the most important parts of life, citizenship, scholarship, and humanity. For example, the Texas state exam requires that students know who wrote Common Sense. They don't have to know what it was about, when it was written, what "pamphleteering" is, or how it fits in with the American Revolution. All they have to know is that Thomas Paine wrote it.

I know it's fashionable to blame teachers for everything. But you have to remember, most teachers are not in the game for the big salaries or the glamour or the prestige. They're in it because they love to teach. If they were left to their own devices, most government and American history teachers would spend weeks on the Bill of Rights and discuss the implications of each amendment to American life today. But that's not on the test, so they don't because they can't.

You can't straitjacket and manacle a man, throw him into the ocean, and announce that he has to swim. States and the federal government have tied teachers' hands in the name of school improvement so important things that can't be answered by a multiple-choice exam are no longer deemed important.

The cult of testing wants schools to be equally excellent. But instead what we have is a communist (or perhaps Rawlsian) notion of equality: everyone is getting pulled down to the lowest common denomonator.

So don't blame the teachers, at least not completely. Parents, communities, administrators, voters, elected officials, and academia have a lot to answer for in this one.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[tacokill]

" There was strong censorship in our assignments about what we could right about. "

Apparently, English wasn't one of the assignments.

Normally, I'm not a nit but c'mon. How do you not know how to spell "write"? If you did, it would make your comment much more convincing.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[TGK]

You raise an excelent point. Moreover, I'd guess you're fairly young, perhaps a recent HS graduate, in college now perhaps?

I don't say this to demean your writing or your arguments, but to simply make an observation. As we age, we tend to forget the unplesent bits.

This is a pretty normal human reaction. It's how humans deal with pain and suffering, how we heal our minds. My HS girlfriend burned me pretty bad, did some horrid things to me and caused me a lot of anguish. We're close friends now, and that's mostly because in my head, I've blocked out most of the ugly stuff that transpired between us.

I have a point here, I promise.

High School is a lot like that. We look back during our 10 year reunion, when all the people who were assholes to us are back and reminesing, being polite and curtious because they're adults. We walk into that High School gym and are called Mr. and Ms. So and So by the principls and teachers because now we're adults, taxpayers, voters, and worthy of some kind of respect.

We forget what High School was like, we forget what elementry and middle school were like. We gloss over all the ugly bits and just remember the good parts.

When my High School class was being sold rings (on a side note, if you're going to College, don't get a high school ring. They're crap and no one wants to remember highschool) we were told that "High School is the best four years of you life, you'll want this ring to remember it by." We were told this by 40 somethings who, by this point, had blotted out every trauma they'd suffered in High School. To them, it really was the best years of their lives. To us, it was a living hell.

My point is, that if you're still aware of how bitterly ugly the public school system can be, you're probably young enough to have experianced it first hand in recent memory.

My wife tought History in the public schools for a few years after graduating college. She finished College in 3 years, so she was the youngest teacher in the her school system, even during her second year teaching. She had graduated High School not to long before and remembered all to clearly how bad it really was. There was a reason she was the most well beloved teacher in the school: she understood.

Our students leave their constitutional rights at the door. The Courts have upheld this fundamental premise time and time again. The school has the right to ast in loci parenti, or in the place of the parents. The school IS the legal guardian and as a consequence has all the rights and privilages thereof unless stated otherwise in law.

I don't know if there is a good solution to this. School papers do have the right to censor what is published, there, at the same time the students have a strong case for handing out their own literature. One of the big problems is that case law about what Schools can and can't censor is complex stuff. Most teachers aren't trained in law, fewer still understand it adequately enough to make informed decisions about what they can and can't do. Most err on the side of exercising too much authority because it is theirs to exercise.

A student's life is one lived under and opressive and fundamentaly unpredictable regime. The idea that someone in authority can do whatever they want whenever they want is one reenforced by the world in which they live. It's hardly a shock to see that students translate their experiance into conclusions about the rest of the world.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[mrseth]

I think Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are on to something. I remember reading a finding that watchers of The Daily Show were more politically aware than a lot of viewers of other major news outlets. I think it was here. Maybe some of these techniques could be adopted for use in the classroom?

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I'm sorry, but I think in order to have a competent educational system we have to asssume (gasp) kids don't want to be there, and would rather be doing something else and work from there.

No. No. No. No. In high school and beyond if it is established a student does not want to be their and their actions are compatible with that POV, then you see to it that they are not there (i.e., allowed to leave or flunk out via self-inflicted incompentence). These laggards, whether in HS or college, are a drain on precious educational resources. Let the kids fuck around a few years working at menial jobs. Those with aptitude will find a way to get educated (formally or informally). Those without aptitude will get an early jump on building their retirement nest egg (albeit slowly and assuming they have the brains to save - if they don't, no amount of $alery will help).

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[soft_guy]

The government runs the schools they are in. Therefore when the government oppresses them in schools, they feel oppressed. Duh.

Forcing kids to attend school is anti-freedom. Forcing parents to send kids to school is anti-freedom. The government gets by with it because age discrimination is allowed in our society. This is also anti-freedom.

If you think America is a free country, think again. Your rights to act as you wish are abridged arbitrarily. Sometimes that abridgement wouldn't stand up in court, but most people can't afford to go to court to protect their rights.

Police can and do demand to see your ID (even if you are not driving a car). This was recently upheld by the supreme court. (Your papers please?)

Have you ever heard of a policeman who was convicted for shooting someone? All they have to say is "Oh, I thought he had a gun." and they can kill you for no reason. Given that they have the ability to murder you for any or no reason, you have no freedom at all.

I am totally not trolling here. This is what I think. I have lived all my life in the US and this country makes me sick with its hypocracy.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[EvanED]

Doesn't necessarily mean that TDS viewers are getting their knowledge from TDS; it could just be that people who are politically aware appreciate the intelligent humor Stewart and crew brings to the show. Without knowledge of current events and politics, much of the humor is lost.

Remember, correlation doesn't imply causation.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[ImaLamer]

One question: How much did the teachers care?

When my American History and Government teacher was "on-stage" she commanded the class and got everyone involved. After three weeks you knew that her class wasn't a joke and that you were not going to be able to escape.

Not that she ruled with fear or anything - she let you know when she was hurt by your actions. The African-American woman was no more than 5 feet tall and had the ability to control even the most apathetic football players and "losers".

Kids don't care about American history or politics? They don't care about math, chemistry and ancient writings?

You fucking make them care dammmit!

It isn't so much about force, but about becoming an adult. There are too many things out there that could affect your life and plans for that life. You need to be educated about them in order to navigate life - teachers have to make children aware of these things. It is important to know things like sublimation and due process and the like.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to not care... this is the type of thing the school should be addressing. If they can't teach the basics, and move onto advanced concepts such as law, science and language then they need to first enstill a sense of caring in the students.

It is their duty, IMHO. Letting everyone not care is just a waste of time.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[radja]

"school authorities are not democratically chosen, and should not have the same power as a government"

sounds reasonable...

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[syukton]

You're a little off in your assessment; I haven't been in highschool for more than 7 years, and I've had enough college to satisfy me for now. What I do have, however, is younger brothers, and they're going through the same stuff I did, day in, day out. It's hard to forget about the bad parts of highschool when the people you care about are going through the same BS themselves and are able to offer you a daily reminder of the double-standard that "we the people" provide to "them the children."

The solution is to bring the double standard to an end and concede that no matter somebody's age, they have responsibilities, rights and freedoms. Since schools are tax-funded, they should be operated on the same principles of freedom as our government, no? Our government which is also tax-funded? Or is this like some loophole, kind of like the oil for food program, where we give money to people to run dictatorial institutions void of freedom? The double standard needs to go.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Mod up!!

Blame where blame is due

[HMA2000]

I blame Bush and Neocons. Also, Halliburton... I blame them for everything that is wrong everywhere. If only Redstaters were such dumb walmart shopping, nascar watching dummies.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Anonymous Coward]

yawn

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Adams4President]

I'd like to think the parent poster is making a subtle social statement about the quickness to blame conservatives for everything.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[sleepnmojo]

I thought it was Bill Clinton's fault. Now I'm confused.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[DocSavage64109]

I assume you meant "If only Redstaters weren't such dumb walmart shopping, nascar watching dummies."

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

I blame you because you do nothing but make complaints based on popular one sided theory. I blame you because you because all you do is espouse destructive criticism and say vague comments with no backing. The only ones that would actually listen to your drivel are these un-educated high-school kids, because apparently they just go with what sounds good without thinking it through, just like yourself.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[cogitolv]

Shame on you. The activities of those groups you cite are horrible, irrational, and in some cases down right evil. By overstating their responsibility here, you hope all the blame toward these irresponsible groups would likewise be dismissed. A fallacious ad absurdium argument. Shame on you for such weak resoning regarding some rather terrible people.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't know John Kerry read /.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Anonymous Coward]

I blame you both.

-- a white-stater
(or is that purple-stater, I can't keep track...)

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Gadgetfreak]

I'm surprised you have enough friends to mod you "insightful" for that wonderful comment. (It was +4 when I started typing this.) NASCAR is a lot more complicated than you seem to think it is, and WalMart is kicking everyone's ass at capitalism. Whether or not you like it, there seem to be plenty of others who love it.

Thanks for continuing to prove that the USA is going down the drain simply because your ignorance is always someone else's fault.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Dr Reducto]

I blame you for such blatant stereotyping of people because they are of a certain political persuasion.

In fact, I think that your attitude is exactly why Kerry isn't in the White House today. Honestly, who is going to vote for a candidate who comes off as very elitst when all of his supporters act incredibly elitist, saying things like you are, that Republicans are bible thumping rednecks, and other assorted insults. It simply alienates a lot of people who wouldotherwise vote for you, even if they disagreed with your moral viewpoints a little bit.

Lastly, grouping people like that makes you look less intelligent.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent (er, grandparent) was a wry bit of satire, I'll agree.

Of course, what heinous crime was Clinton impeached on? This wasn't an off-the-cuff effort. This was an attempted coup d'etat. Maybe the chickens have come home to roost.

I used to be an independent. Thanks to the Republican party's efforts over the last decade, I am now a Democrat. I still don't declare, but I generally vote a straight ticket. It's pretty damn sad, but I just won't give the party of outlaws that is the GOP any more power, ever.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Anonymous Coward]

yah turning left is wicked complicated, and walmart uses child slave labor camps/sweatshops, thats cool too

Re:Blame where blame is due

[syrinx]

I completely agree with your points. It's a big reason why I'm not a Democrat.

That said, the post you responded to was a blatant joke, making fun of the same people you're talking about. I think the key line was "I blame them for everything that is wrong everywhere." Sure, lots of people do that, but they don't tend to state it up front. :)

Re:Blame where blame is due

[WhiplashII]

It should be obvious! The NEOCONS ARE Clinton's fault!

Re:Blame where blame is due

[Wes Janson]

when all of his supporters act incredibly elitist, saying things like you are, that Republicans are bible thumping rednecks

Lastly, grouping people like that makes you look less intelligent.

Indeed it does!

Re:Blame where blame is due

[randallpowell]

I blame Bush and Neocons. Also, Halliburton... I blame them for everything that is wrong everywhere. If only Redstaters were such dumb walmart shopping, nascar watching dummies.

Truely creative. You're a poet, no? Why is it that bluestaters make the rest of us look bad? Same can be said for redstaters. Why must we turn against each other? Let's live and let live and try to solve our problems.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[randallpowell]

Neocons is everyone's fault for taking Christ out of Christmas, preventing fundies from forcing kids to pray to their god, stopping them from teaching creationism (intelligent design) in science classes, and forcing non-fundies to convert under threat of death or harm.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[randallpowell]

grouping people like that makes you look less intelligent Too true.

Honestly, who is going to vote for a candidate who comes off as very elitst when all of his supporters act incredibly elitist I never understod this elitist attitude and never encountered it from liberals except APA which is more elitist than any liberal conservatives can point out. I just never seen it and I'm a liberal with liberal friends.

Republicans are bible thumping rednecks Not all are but with Evangicals taking over the Republician party, it does give that impression. Then again, why ignore the Democrat Bible thumpers? I'm surrounded by them.

Re:Blame where blame is due

[davide marney]

I never understod this elitist attitude and never encountered it from liberals ... I just never seen it and I'm a liberal with liberal friends.

Well, since you asked. (Not trying to flame anyone here, just trying to illustrate what it looks like from the other side ...)

elitist = condescending, arrogant, we-know-better-than-you: After the election, liberals were complaining that conservatives voted against their own best interest when they voted for Bush. Not a great way to win friends and influence people. If you want someone's vote, you have to win it by showing some respect.

elitist = smug, self-righteous: Liberals are oh, so proud of how diverse and "correct" they think they are.

elitist = putting on superior airs: Liberals are so certain that they have absolute truth (which for them is, "the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth"), and so sure that they're smart and everyone else is a moron.

Just a few examples ...

Re:Blame where blame is due

[WhiplashII]

No, no... you are forgetting the fact that Clinton is the source of all evil, and so is retroactively at fault for all these issues...

Is it getting better, or worse?

[Gob Blesh It]

"Only half the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories"? Yikes.

Inside me is a kneejerk activist who wants to point to this as evidence that growing up, as children have since 9/11/01, surrounded by authority figures who casually restrict freedom of speech in the name of guarding against terrorism, encourages children to pattern their thoughts and behavior along similar unfortunate lines.

But actually, I'd like to know what similar studies have been conducted in years past. If this is the way young adults have always thought, then things probably won't get any worse. What would be disturbing is a trend showing young adults finding restrictions on free speech increasingly acceptable.

Re:Is it getting better, or worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's getting worse:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/sofa_r eports/i ndex.aspx
and
http://www.cpanda.org/data/profile s/sofa.html

Re:Is it getting better, or worse?

[Gob Blesh It]

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Re:Is it getting better, or worse?

[BroadwayBlue]

Happy to help. I only scanned the links before posting (forgot to sign-in), so I'm not positive they apply to the original article. But, it should give you a trend of adult Americans...the high school specific parts may be in there somewhere.

Re:Is it getting better, or worse?

[Gob Blesh It]

"In 2004, Americans' support for their First Amendment freedoms -- deeply shaken by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- continues to rebound and is back at pre-9/11 levels, according to the annual State of the First Amendment survey, conducted by the First Amendment Center in collaboration with American Journalism Review magazine."

Sounds hopeful...

Re:Is it getting better, or worse?

[jrumney]

Inside me is a kneejerk activist who wants to point to this as evidence that growing up, as children have since 9/11/01, surrounded by authority figures who casually restrict freedom of speech in the name of guarding against terrorism, encourages children to pattern their thoughts and behavior along similar unfortunate lines.

But actually, I'd like to know what similar studies have been conducted in years past.

A large scale study was carried out in Germany, Japan and Italy in the 1930s and '40s. Whole nations patterned their thoughts and behaviour behind totally irrational megalomaniacs. More recently similar smaller scale studies have been carried out in Cambodia, North Korea and Microsoft, and one larger scale study in China has been going on for over fifty years now.

Re:Is it getting better, or worse?

[cpeterso]

Those articles would be a lot more useful if they actually GRAPHED their annual results in nice chart. Instead, they make the reader click to multiple pages to find their survey results buried deep within multiple paragraphs.

Re:Is it getting better, or worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid that you have to read and extract information on your own. It's hard work (c.2004 GWB)

Re:Is it getting better, or worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please elaborate on this. I tried to look specifically at the question of whether the press should be able to publish freely without government approval, and although I couldn't locate the results for 2004 (for this particular question), it seemed like the results had relativaly small variations over the period (1997-2003, excluding 1998). Now I know that's not a lot of data, but I'm just curious about the basis for your assertion that "it's getting worse".

For many of the questions the results seem worse right after 9/11, but it seems like that effect is wearing off.

While I agree that this is worrisome, I also think it is important to keep in mind that the high school population is a generally ignorant group of people. I know I was an ignorant fool (at least when it came to these issues) in high school, even if I now spend more time reading about politics and worrying about the state of the world than is probably good for my health. I don't think most people start worrying about larger issues until they move out of their parent's home.

Re:Is it getting better, or worse?

[AK Marc]

Inside me is a kneejerk activist who wants to point to this as evidence that growing up, as children have since 9/11/01, surrounded by authority figures who casually restrict freedom of speech in the name of guarding against terrorism, encourages children to pattern their thoughts and behavior along similar unfortunate lines.

Nah, it has been happening since the War on Drugs, and the Red Scare before that.

So,

[The Slashdot Guy]

They probably don't understand any of the others, either.

sad day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just goes to show that the public edumacation in America sucks. (I'm a product of that, so no flame war please.

U.S. Adults Don't Understand First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

either, I bet.

The Constitution

[eggoeater]

The constitution also doesn't say "separation of church and state" .... but I wish it did.

Re:The Constitution

[fishbowl]

>The constitution also doesn't say "separation of
> church and state" .... but I wish it did.

It does. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That is the very essence of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and goes much further to protect this fundamental right of the people than your wished-for clause would.

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

"respecting an establishment of religion..."

IOW, not making laws that discriminate between different sects.

Yes, it's true. Etymology helps, so does reading history. It's sad, most people don't know history, and don't read much either.

Re:The Constitution

[antifoidulus]

The constitution also doesn't mention that Senators are not allowed to engage in kinky turkey sex on the steps of the capitol. It was meant to be vague, and that is probably why it is the oldest codified written national constitution still in force.

Re:The Constitution

[jbarr]

What I find interesting is that The Constitution specifically reads "Congress shall make no law..." OK, that's Congress. What about local governments? Are, by extension, included under the "Congressional umbrella" or are they "separate" with the legal ability to make such laws? I am not a constitutional scholar, so please enlighten me!

Re:The Constitution

[damian cosmas]

exactly. Framers' intent was to prevent the establishment of a "state religion," like the Church of England.

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

read the 14th amendment in conjunction with the 1st (and others)

Re:The Constitution

[Webmoth]

Since we're bringing up the Constitution of the United States of America, we might as well have Amendment I in front of us for reference:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I bring your attention to the the second part of the first clause: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It's amazing how many people seem to forget this little tidbit. You must understand that it applies not only to citizens but to civil service workers, teachers, students, judges, our elected leaders, our military, and anyone priviledged to call himself "American."

The doctrine espoused in this amendment is not separation of church and state, but rather, that the state shall not interfere in the affairs of the church, and no church shall direct the affairs of the government. This amendment restricts no individual from expressing his religious convictions in any circumstance or location, and guarantees the freedom to act in accordance with those convictions.

It does not bar religious education in public schools; it does not prevent the display of religious icons in public places. At the same time, it does not require any citizen to bow before a particular diety, say a particular prayer, or express a particular belief.

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the 10th amendment?

Re:The Constitution

[Undertaker43017]

The 1st amendment does not guarantee separation of church and state, as you state. Atheists use it to promote this concept, but what it is doing is guaranteeing that the government doesn't interfere with a persons right to practice whatever religion they wish to.

I would suggest reading Badnarik's book on the Constitution, "Good to Be King", very enlightening. It should be required reading for HS civic/govt courses.

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

14th limits the 10th somewhat in that a state cannot violate a person's rights under the constitution.

What scenario did you have in mind particularly? The Constitution has to be read as a whole with preference given to later amendments to it.

Re:The Constitution

[Webmoth]

When I say "restricts no idividual," what I mean is that the individual may be member of Congress leading the same in prayer, it may be a teacher leading in the Pledge of Allegiance (which currently utters the name of "God"), and it may be a validictorian calling upon God in her address, in addition to the mother quietly praying alone at home.

When I was in grade school, we said the Pledge of Allegiance, every morning, uttering the name of God. Those who objected were free to "sit it out" and not say the Pledge; they were not thought less for it.

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't he the one who supports strapping prisoners to the bed for a month when they enter prison so their muscles atrophy? Or is he the one who supports eliminating the federal reserve? There are so many kooks to keep straight.

Re:The Constitution

[cpt kangarooski]

The Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from infringing on any person's liberty without due process of law. This has eventually been interpreted as incorporating most of the Bill of Rights as limiting the power of the states as well as the federal government. Also, other liberty interests cannot be arbitrarily interfered with, though the degree of due process necessary may vary depending on the importance of the liberty interest at stake.

Re:The Constitution

[Undertaker43017]

Actually both.

He is wrong on the prisioners, they should just be put to death.

His point on the Federal Reserve is it has no right to exist. The Constitution states that only Congress can make and regulate currency. The Federal Reserve is not Congress and therefore produces and controls money illegally.

Re:The Constitution

[rleibman]

Sure it does, if not implied by the 1st, then by the 9th and 10th. Read them.

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

14th Amendment.

Re:The Constitution

[Wavicle]

You are exactly right, it says "Congress shall make no law." So congress was precluded from making such a law but the states were NOT.

It was not until the 20th century when the supreme court started broadly interpretting the 14th amendment that states which had made laws to permit such things as double jeopardy, restriction on freedom of religion and unreasonable search and seizure were forced to give them up and we got to where we are today.

Many of the freedoms given to you in the constitution were not until relatively recently given to you in every state.

Re:The Constitution

[Wildfire Darkstar]

This is a disturbingly common reading of the phrase, and, understood in historical context, it's still wrong.

The grandparent post was right, though: etymology does help. As does grammar. The object of the sentence is not "religion": it's "establishment of religion." In this context, it most likely means organized religion as a whole. In other words, a passably acceptable paraphrase is "Congress can't make laws which deal with religion," not "Congress can't establish a state religion." You cannot parse the sentence that way (correctly, at least)! In any case, "establishment" is a noun, not a verb: I can't "establishment" a religion, and neither can Congress.

To be sure, yes, this means that Congress can't establish a state religion. But it means quite a bit more than that, when you actually sit down and start thinking through the repurcussions of it all. It means, in short, that any sort of preferential/discriminatory treatment of any religion on the part of Congress is disallowed. Which is how the Supreme Court has long interpreted it (that being a major part of their job, an' all...) and how the phrase was commonly understood until a bunch of people who really should know better decided to start flaunting the grammatical structure of English in service of misguided spiritual ideals (IMO).

Re:The Constitution

[MoneyT]

The constitution also says congress can make all laws nessesary and proper to carry out their powers. The federal reserve was created by act of law.

Re:The Constitution

[Shadow Wrought]

I'm not a Constitutional Law Scholar either, but I will do what I can;-) Basically after the Civil War there were a number of Amendments that were added. One of these, the XIV, was designed to apply the Constitutional Amendments to all of the States. At the time the Amendments were only a prohibition against the Federal Government- not the States. So, in order to make sure that the Confederate States did not start back up with slavery, they made all of the amendments (including the XIII which prohibited slavery) apply to the States.

That's the easy part. The difficult part hit when the XIV was challenged and the Supreme Court ruled that the entirety of the Amendments did not automatically apply to the States. Oops. What has happened instead is that the Amendments have been applied to the States in piecemeal fashion through various Supreme Court decisions. So the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments (I believe- I'm going off of memory) have been applied. The rest, therefore by default, have not.

In practical matters then, assuming a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Federal Government would be prohibited from making a law which restricted firearms, while the states would not. Indeed, in theory at least, a State could even ban guns completely within its borders and not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment since it has not been interpreted to apply to the States. As a sideline to this you should keep in mind that while everyone is free to read and interpret the Constitution (which I would encourage) there are only 9 opinions that actually count;-)

For your convenience, the relevant text of the XIV Amendment is in section 1:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Re:The Constitution

[LetterJ]

That's where the whole concept of whatever the Constitution doesn't cover is left to the states. That principle was hotly debated and held as a pretty high ideal in early American history. Eventually, the lightning rod issue for the sovereignty of the individual states became slavery. However, while that wasn't the only "states rights" issue being argued in the 1860's, it ended up being the one that effectively ended the era of individual states being left to regulate themselves on issues not addressed directly by the Constitution by virtue of the end result of the American Civil War.

Because of the obvious issues surrounding slavery itself, the federal vs. state issue often takes a back seat when discussing that era. I think that, had the slavery issue been settled in any other way than war (like the southern states outlawing it on their own), the federal vs. state discussion would have shaped the United States in a very different way. There are quite a few scholars who say that slavery would have likely ended for economic and outright moral outrage within a few decades without the war, it's an interesting area of speculation.

We're seeing a resurfacing of this concept with things like gay marriage, medical marijuana, assisted suicide, stem cell research, ten commandments in local government buildings (you thought I was only going to address "liberal" issues didn't you? :) ), etc. with individual states making things legal in their state that all of the rest still have illegal. The end up battling the federal jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, but it's a related tension to the one that goes back to the very founding of this country.

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

No I think you are reading too much into what those people want. Congress can make no law regarding religion. So how exactly is a judge displaying the 10 commandments regarded as Congress doing anything. Last I checked a judge was under the Judicial branch of our government not the Legislative.

I think the SC has long been forcing their views illegally.

Re:The Constitution

[rleibman]

That, plus the fact that many state constitutions reference the federal constitution (and the bill of rights).

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Please remember, or learn, that the US follows English Common Law.

Essentially, that means that in legal terms, you cannot reread the original Constitution and invent your own understanding.

English Common Law is to law, what Catholicism is to religion -- it is a system set against every person inventing their own interpretation, and every case going back to arguing original wording.

Precedent, where binding, *is* part of the law.

That is what it means, that we are under English Common Law.

Re:The Constitution

[damian cosmas]

I hate to say it, but RTFC (or RTFBoR).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Make = verb; law = noun/object; respecting = participle, modifying law. Respect (v) according to the OED: "To treat or regard with deference, esteem, or honour; to feel or show respect for". Establishment: "the act of establishing"

Putting it all together: "Congress shall make no law esteeming, honouring, or showing respect for an act of establishing of religion." Sounds like state religion to me.

Some quick Googling:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project s/ftrials/c onlaw/estabinto.htm
"At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. "

Then again, I'm not the Supreme Court, so it doesn't really matter what I say.

Of course, the issue hasn't really come up, since Congress hasn't tried to establish a state religion.

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course the establishment of religion refers to the established church vs the gathered church. In England, the Anglican church was defined to be the national church. It was established such that by definition, people living within a certain area were members of the parish church and had to attend, etc. Contrast this with the Dutch ideas of the gathered church where people who wanted to go went wherever they felt like. Good try though, still no "separation of church and state" and there shouldn't be.

Re:The Constitution

[RealAlaskan]

The constitution also doesn't say "separation of church and state" ....

You're right. I don't often get to say that on this forum! That phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. The confusion between semi-private letter and constitution seems to have first become official in 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, where the Supreme court followed the grand old tradition of Dred Scott and screwed things up royally.

Re:The Constitution

[Keebler71]

Wow, a very nice, well-articulated and thought-provocing post... looks like you got hit by the moderator who disagreed with you rather than was capable objectively performing his/her duties...

Re:The Constitution

[Hobadee]

FYI - There isn't anything in the Constitution declaring the separation of church and state. That is an interperatation that we made up. The quote: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... simply states that the government cannot endorse, protect, or prosecute a specific religion, not that they must remain separate. I took a very interesting course on this in college which actually encouraged religion in government, as religion is *supposed* to have higher moral standards. (No war, be nice to enviornment, etc...)

Disclaimer: I'm a Christian, but a liberal (*gasp*) one. (I apologize for our current president who claims to be Christian but doesn't follow most of Jesus' teachings.)

Re:The Constitution

[Undertaker43017]

Just because Congress passes a law, doesn't mean it's Constitutional for them to do so. Only the Judical branch can decide that, and so far they haven't had the chance.

Jefferson believed that Constitution did not give the Congress the right to set up "The Bank of the United States" in 1791.

Re:The Constitution

[damian cosmas]

yeah... "help, help, I'm being repressed"

I should complain about how my first amendment rights are being violated:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137903&cid=1 15 31718

Re:The Constitution

[Lanboy]

Ah...Its the Framers Mind-Reading act again.

Perhaps it might have had something to do with the different religions common throughout the former colonies? The fact that many of the states were formed by adherents of persecuted religions?

We will need to go into the senate debate records to know for sure... This is from Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment (New York: MacMillan, 1986) which you may dismiss as leftist tomfoolery if you are the sort who wants to make my kids pray to Jesus.

[81] The Senate began debate on the House amendments on September 3 and continued through September 9. The debate was conducted in secrecy and no record exists but the bare [82] account of motions and votes in the Senate Journal. According to the record of September 3, three motions of special interest here were defeated on that day. These motions restricted the ban in the proposed amendment to establishments preferring one sect above others. The first motion would have made the clause in the amendment read: "Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others..." After the failure of this motion and of another to kill the amendment, a motion was made to change it to read: "Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society." The final defeated motion restated the same thought differently: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another..." The Senate then adopted the language of the House: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion..."

The failure of these three motions, each of which seemed to express a narrow intent, and the adoption of the House version prove that the Senate intended something broader than merely a ban on preference to one sect. Yet, if anything is really clear about the problem of "meaning" and "intent" it is that little is clear; when the Senate returned to the clause six days later, it altered the House amendment to read: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." Like the three previously defeated motions, this one had the unmistakable meaning of limiting the ban to acts that prefer one denomination over others or that, to put it simply, establish a single state church.

[83] The Senate's wording provoked the House to take action that made its intent clear, as the next step in the drafting of the amendment revealed. In voting on the Senate's proposed amendments, the House accepted some and rejected others, including the Senate's article on religion. To resolve the disagreement between the two branches, the House proposed a joint conference committee. The Senate refused to recede from its position but agreed to the proposal for a conference committee. The committee, a strong and distinguished one, consisted of Madison as chairman of the House conferees, joined by Sherman and Vining, and Ellsworth as chairman of the Senate conferees, joined by Paterson and Carroll. Four of the six men had been influential members of the Constitutional Convention. The House members of the conference flatly refused to accept the Senate's version of the amendment on religion, indicating that the House would not be satisfied with merely a ban on preference of one sect or religion over others. The Senate conferees abandoned the Senate's version, and the amendment was redrafted to give it its present phraseology. On September, Ellsworth reported to the Senate that the House would accept the Senate's version of the other amendments provided that the amendment on religion "shall read as follows: Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." 0n the same day, the House sent a message to the Senate verifying Ellsworth's report. On the next day, September 25, the Senate by a two-thirds vote accepted the condition laid down by the House.Congress had passed the establishment clause.

Re:The Constitution

[geekpolitico]

The term "separation of church and state" comes from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. It is generally thought that Jefferson was a Deist (along with John Adams), and would generally fear a theocratic state. Although it is not in the Constitution directly, it is considered to be the desire of a variety of influential founding fathers (although .. that link seems to rely on some hearsay and may be a bit propagandist).

Re:The Constitution

[tengwar]

I doubt that grammar is the best guide here. In England (and I do mean England, not the UK), the "established church" is the Church of England, and this has a specific legal meaning. At the time of the US constitution, this would have included: only Anglicans allowed to hold any public office; only Anglicans allowed to attend university; farmers obliged to pay a tithe to the Church of England; certain bishops to hold seats in the House of Lords (equivalent to the Senate - this last disappeared a couple of years ago).

Re "the establishment" as a noun - yes, but I suspect that it is in the sense of "the establishing" (what is the opposite of a gerund?).

Re:The Constitution

[schleyfox]

>I can't "establishment" a religion, and neither >can Congress. But George Bush can!

Re:The Constitution

[Wildfire Darkstar]

The issue isn't "inventing" a new interpretation, exactly. The issue is clarifying a preexisting statement so that it can be enforced. And that is the job of the Supreme Court. It has been the job of the Supreme Court since the first days of the 19th century, and has been accepted as necessary for the operation of the government for almost as long.

You're right: precedent is all-important. And that precedent is set by the Supreme Court until explicitly overturned by law.

Re:The Constitution

[bigpat]

"respecting an establishment of religion..."

IOW, not making laws that discriminate between different sects.

There are several meanings here and they are all equally valid. "respecting" is used to both mean to give respect to and also to mean 'regarding' Meaning Congress won't give particular respect to one "establishment of religion" and it won't make laws regarding a particular establishment of religion, so that it will not interfere with church law, practice or doctrine which is particular to religion. And of course Congress won't establish a religion, but that follows logically from meanings of the statement and is not directly stated.

Unless you refuse to believe, as a matter of ignorance, that respecting also means 'regarding' then the meaning and succinctly clear.

Re:The Constitution

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Make = verb; law = noun/object; respecting = participle, modifying law. Respect (v) according to the OED: "To treat or regard with deference, esteem, or honour; to feel or show respect for". Establishment: "the act of establishing"

Ah, but "establishment" (and far more commonly) means "institution" ("drinking establishment," etc.) While it can be either, the only logical way to parse the sentence is to to assume the latter: otherwise you have a grammatically awkward construction that does a piss poor job of addressing the issues facing the founding fathers.

Some quick Googling:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project s/ftrials/c onlaw/estabinto.htm
"At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding."

How does this contradict anything I've said? Yes, it definitely says that... at bare minimum . But, it also says a lot more than that. The idea of "separation of church and state" (which may not appear in the document itself, but was corroborated in the writings of various framers, like Jefferson and Adams) is designed to prevent both the de jure creation of state religion as well as the de facto equivalent (which, in this case, would be giving preferential treatment to a particular religious institution without ever going so far as to enshrine it as a "state religion").

Re:The Constitution

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Yeah, but the thing is that the reading I provided covers that just as well as the "state religion" reading (it just goes further), and has the added benefit of not having to assume the founding fathers were unable to structure a sentence properly.... :-)

Re:The Constitution

[damian cosmas]

Perhaps your usage of "establishment" is more common now. However, the OED is nice enough to give us definitions from a broad range of times, with appropriate literature for context. Let us go to entry 2:

2. esp. The 'establishing' by law (a church, religion, form of worship). (See ESTABLISH v. 7.) {dag}a. In early use, the settling or ordering in a particular manner, the regulating and upholding of the constitution and ordinances of the church recognized by the state.

And their excerpt of choice really does it:

1706-7 Act 5 Anne c. 5 Securing Ch. Eng., Acts of Parliament now in Force for the Establishment and Preservation of the Church of England.

The Constitution, and all of written law, consists of nothing but "grammatically awkward construction[s]".

Your definition of choice is refuted by Congress' ability to charter the construction of the (Episcopal) National Cathedral.

I have no doubt about the other potential consequences of that clause of the First Amendment. My interpretation of the language used leads me to my conclusion about the framers' intent; undoubtedly, the Supreme Court has interpreted it differently on occasion ;) Then again, they also use social science to formulate decisions, but that can of worms is seriously OT.

Re:The Constitution

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Your definition of choice is refuted by Congress' ability to charter the construction of the (Episcopal) National Cathedral.

And your chosen definition runs counter to the accepted interpretation handed down by the Supreme Court. And since interpretation is their job.... :-)

(That Congress has, on occassion, violated the letter and/or spirit of the Constitution is not in dispute. It only becomes an issue if argued before the courts. The National Cathedral charter was never legally challenged, and the Supreme Court can't intervene otherwise. So it's a nonstarter.)

I don't dispute that you have provided a valid definition: I merely question your certainty in asserting that it is the "correct" one. In the context of the clause itself, it's awkward, poorly constructed, and jars with the recorded thoughts of several (though certainly not all) founders. If nothing else, it's got Occam's Razor going against it :-)

Re:The Constitution

[randallpowell]

Just what we need, more worthless law suits. Too bad lawyers run our nation, if they didn't we wouldn't sue each other over anything and everything.

Re:The Constitution

[randallpowell]

Disclaimer: I'm a Christian, but a liberal (*gasp*) one. (I apologize for our current president who claims to be Christian but doesn't follow most of Jesus' teachings.)

You're a Christian and I'm a Buddhist. By literal you mean you take the Bible literally? Don't apologize for Bush. You're not responsible for his actions. He may say he is a Christian but he does have a business degree....

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Please re-read parent, then re-read your post, then think about what you posted and what is wrong with it. Here's a hint: Your off by 1 letter.

Re:The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant! By circumventing the laws of grammar, W can act unrestrictedmentally.

Re:The Constitution

[AhtirTano]

Putting it all together: "Congress shall make no law esteeming, honouring, or showing respect for an act of establishing of religion."

Not really. You have chosen an inaccurate definition of "respecting".

The definition you want is definition 3b. of the OED:
In pres. pple. With reference or regard to.

So what it means is: "Congress shall make no law with reference to an act of establishing of religion."

Re:The Constitution

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Short answer: the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends many of the same behavioral restrictions the Federal government operates under to state and local governments as well. Which means that if Congress can't pass a law concerning an "establishment of religion," then neither can the states.

And the Supreme Court is most emphatically not "forcing their views illegally," as the process of judicial review is not illegal, and even most people who dislike various decisions regarding the Establishment Clauses wouldn't question the legality of the concept. Morally questionable, maybe. Illegal, no.

Re:The Constitution

[randallpowell]

My bad. Have pity, I have a psych degree.

Re:The Constitution

[Krach42]

Yes, "establishment" is a noun, not a verb, but guess what? It's a nominalization of a verb. "establishment" is inarguablly related to "establish" the verb. And in fact, "Establishment" refers quite specifically to the action performed in the verb "establish."

Now, let's go over nominalization of a verbal phrase. A verbal phrase usually has a subject, and a predicate, the predicate being composed of a verb and some number of objects or prepositional phrases. "of religion" in this case is a prepositional phrase, but there's something interesting about nominalization of a verbal phrase, and that's that neither the subject nor object of said phrase is allowed to remain un-affixed. (More so the subject across languages, but unmarked objects also show the same grammatical change)

Thus let's look at the whole phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Congress (subject) shall make (verb with modal) no law (shall make no law may sound funny now, but predicate negation is quite common in Germanic languages, and was so in English) respecting (adverb, meaning in regards to) the establishment of religion (nominalized verbal phrase of the meaning: establish a religion) or prohibiting (they can't make a law that doesn't allow...) the free excercise thereof (freedom to practice it as one will)

Thus, the phrase could be accurately rendered into modern English with the phrase:

"Congress cannot make a law that would establish a religion, or prohibit the expression of religion."

Some info: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt1.h tml

Madison wanted it to say: the government may not make a state religion, while later revisions brought us to the wavy, and uncertain phrasing we have now.

If you want *real* seperation of church and state, then you need to go to France, where the free but conspicious expression of a student's religous beliefs was banned from school. Because it was deemed that any relgiously affiliated action, or dress at school was a violation of seperation of church and state.

Re:The Constitution

[Undertaker43017]

Working through the judical process to get a law declared unconstitutional is FAR better (and completely different) than someone suing McDonald's because they are too stupid to realize that coffee is hot and they could burn themselves with it.

Re:The Constitution

[damian cosmas]

It certainly seems that way. Of course, I also got the wrong one for "establishment," since both 2c and 8a work better here, with appropriately dated citations.

Re:The Constitution

[damian cosmas]

"And your chosen definition runs counter to the accepted interpretation handed down by the Supreme Court. And since interpretation is their job.... :-)"

We can argue this all day. The Supremes vote 9-0 rather infrequently, so I've a healthy number of dissents (and probably a fair number of majorities) to support my interpretation. If the meaning were clear, then they'd likely reach unanimous decisions more often. Unfortunately, those who wrote that line are long dead, so we'll never really get at their intent. But given the language and historical context, I still think I'm right. After all, the Supremes have other tools at their disposal to interpret what has been written, rather than trying to divine framers' intent.

I'm done with this argument, but I'll leave you with another, perhaps more useful, definition of "establishment" from the OED:

"2.c. Now usually, the conferring on a particular religious body the position of a state church."

"1788 PRIESTLEY Lect. Hist. v. lvii. 449 'There is no place where there are more forms of religion openly professed, and without the establishment of any of them than Pennsylvania.'"

Re:The Constitution

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Madison wanted it to say: the government may not make a state religion, while later revisions brought us to the wavy, and uncertain phrasing we have now.

While I still question your grammatical reading of the clause (it's technically correct, but its unusually awkward for the Bill of Rights, and therefore less sensible than various other readings), this, at the heart, is the crux of the problem. What Madison intended was quite different from what the other framers intended (the House apparently favoring a much less equivocal "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or
infringing the rights of conscience.")

If you want *real* seperation of church and state, then you need to go to France, where the free but conspicious expression of a student's religous beliefs was banned from school. Because it was deemed that any relgiously affiliated action, or dress at school was a violation of seperation of church and state.

That's hardly necessary. I am merely a proponent of Everson v. Board of Education: I have no problem what you, as an individual, choose to practice, nor do I ask for any protection from your right to practice it. I merely ask, even demand, that my government not intervene in matters of faith, and do whatever possible to avoid the appearance of impropriety in such matters. I feel that a nuanced understanding of what the founders believed and acted upon with regards to the intersection of the state and religion (such as Madison's opposition to a tax designed to support teachers of religion in Virginia) and the langauge of the Establishment Clause reflects my interpretation. I most certainly do not believe that one needs to infringe upon the second half of the Establishment Clause ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof") in order to enforce the former, as I tend to feel is the case with France.

Re:The Constitution

[Krach42]

Well, my beliefs are that as a matter of tradition, we have a very christian background, and there are going to be a number of things in our government, which have traditionally mentioned God. That's our TRADITION, and whether you agree with the truth of the Bible, I doubt that there are very many kids that have not heard about Noah's Ark.

What I was really attempting to show with the grammatical breakdown of the wording, was to show that it's pretty much ineffective for deciding what the phrase MEANS. Just what it SAYS. ... that and I just wanted to bitch about Nominalized Verbs... heh

I definately agree that breaking people's right to express and excercise their religion in order to protect the right of people to not be influenced by another's religion to be bunk. But then I'm not in the minority as far as my relgion here in the US

In related news...

[True Freak]

Studies show that US schools produce idiots like me. It's a wonder that fast food chains of the nation are still standing.

This just in: American teens ignorant, apathetic

[goldspider]

Pictures at eleven.

High School surveys...

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved High school surveys! I always put "Yes" and the highest number availible for everything.

No right to privacy.

[Anonymous Coward]

The same goes for a right to privacy. Wish it was there, but it is not.

Re:No right to privacy.

[Politburo]

Yes, but just because it is not there does not mean you do not have the right. Check out the 9th amendment.

Differences between understanding and opinion

[The Grey Clone]

Isn't there a fairly large difference between students unterstanding that newspapers are allowed to publish anything and the opinion that they should (or shouldn't) be allowed to basically publish anything? It seems to me more like we have children who are growing up to be facists, rather than we have stupid kids.

Not just studends

[thundergeek]

I think less than half of the adults understand the 1st amendment.

Freedom of speech, sure, speak your mind. But remember, I can't turn my ears off, but YOU can shut up.

When you have something stupid to say, keep it to your self. That is freedom of speech. You are free to shut up.

Re:Not just studends

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Kids??!!

How about U.S. Attorney General

Re:Not just studends

[Politburo]

I think less than half of the adults understand the 1st amendment.

You include yourself in this group, I hope.

Re:Not just studends

[FCAdcock]

"When you have something stupid to say, keep it to your self."

when you post instructions to others, first follow them yourself.

Freedom of Speech is that you can say anything that you want. You must also realize that there are two other freedoms which go along with that freedom. The freedom to be ignored, and the freedom to be ostracised for your words.

Also note that nothing was said about congress not passing laws about what would happen IF you said something they didn't like. Apparently, you can say anything you want, there might be severe consiquences though.

You want an example, go stand infront of the White House and yell "Death to Bush" as loudly as you can... Sure, you're free to say it, but you're also free to go to jail for it as well.

Re:Not just studends

[LukaFox]

Free to go to jail as well? What that sounds like to me is that the government is free to imprison you for what you say. Most of the time, this is not true. In the example given (yelling "Death to Bush") you probably would go to jail because of one of the exceptions to the First Amendment which is that if what you say creates "a clear and present danger" then it is not protected. Now, if you would be convicted of a crime because of that, I don't know. It would depend on the context. For instance, if you were speaking to a large crowd gathered in front of the White House, then it would seem that you're inciting a riot. However, just saying that you wish Bush were dead is protected by the First Amendment.

Numerous times in the history of the United States, laws have been passed (eg the Sedition Act) which did, and were later declared to, violate the First Amendment.

Even if you go to jail, that doesn't mean that the laws you supposedly broke are constitutional. The government is not allowed to impose whatever restrictions it wants on the right to free speech whether it does or not.

well...

[Anonymous Coward]

that sucks...

Ironic

[shreevatsa]

If everyone except the kids understands the FA so well, why does the article have to clear up things like "...thought flag-burning is illegal. It's not", etc.
Looks like the kids are not the only ones in need of education about the First Amendment?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Looks like the kids are not the only ones in need of education about the First Amendment?"

You are too, apparently.

That is, in fact, a correct use of an apostrophe. The contraction "it's" is short for "it is". So without the contraction, that would read "It is not."

Now who feels like a dumbass?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Dipshit. The guy has a valid point and all you can do is pick on grammar?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... and the rest of the world knows what is legal and what is illegal in the USA?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, did you even read the post or did you just want to look like a dumbass?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, you have some problems with reading comprehension.

That is, in fact, not a criticism of the use of the apostrophe. Try reading the post again.

You should be the one feeling like a dumbass.

Re:Ironic

[shreevatsa]

I'm confused.
I already know the correct usage of the apostrophe.
There is no apostrophe in my post.
I have not mentioned anything about the apostrophe.
So what is the point you are trying to make, considering that I am not speaking about grammar, and my grammar is right?
Weird.

Re:Ironic

[Nakago4]

Ok, so you are saying it actually is illegal to burn the flag? I guess that makes you one of the uninformed kids. Check out the results of Texas vs. Johnson. or just look here

Re:Ironic

[kaustik]

C'mon, he was trolling and you fell for it.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

yes.

Re:Ironic

[KillerDeathRobot]

That almost makes sense, except that if they did understand the first amendment, their opinions would be that they shouldn't be allowed to express their own (unpopular) opinions. How likely do you think that is?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

thought so

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah.. it is Slashdot, after all.

Re:Ironic

[bcattwoo]

No, he is saying that if the kids were the only ones who didn't understand the first amendment, then we (presumably not kids) would not need to be reminded that it is legal to burn the flag.

Re:Ironic

[zx75]

Although you wonder about the need to clear things up in the article, it is very useful to those of us who are not american. The statistics are interesting, and they are an indicator to us as to what sort of things to look for in our own students, but I had no idea if flag burning was legal or illegal in the US.

Re:Ironic

[SamSim]

Hi there. I don't live in the United States, and until I read this story I had no idea whether flag burning was illegal or not in your country.

Re:Ironic

[CaptainCarrot]

This is a good example, perhaps, of why the First Amendment is "misunderstood." The plain meaning of the words will not give you a sense of how broadly it's been applied.

Had the intent been to allow all manner of free expression by any method whatsoever, the authors of the amendment wouldn't have felt the need to enumerate several kinds of expression as they did, but simply allowed them all to stand under the rubric "speech". But they didn't. The amendment forbids governmental interference with religion, and restrictions on the right to speech, the press, free assembly, and petitioning the government. If flag-burning can be regarded as "speech" why not all the rest of these? That the authors thought "speech" was inadequate to cover all the forms of expression they mentioned suggests strongly they took the words they were using at face value.

At face value, speech is verbal expression. It's only through years of indoctrination that flag-burning or any other non-verbal act can be commonly regarded as a form of speech.

When "speech" no longer means the spoken word, is it any wonder there's some confusion about what it does mean?

Re:Ironic

[rthille]

The scary thing to me is that my democratic senator from California supports (at least to me, in a letter in response to my request that she oppose a flag-burning amendment) a constitutional amendment making burning the american flag illegal. The worst thing is the justification that the flag, as a symbol, was too important to not protect it. Jeeze, when Senators belive a symbol of freedom is more important than the freedoms themselves...It's almost enough to make me want to run for office.

Obligatory Futurama...

[sirReal.83.]

And on a light note, illustrating the wisdom of teenagers:

"Teenagers all smoke, and they seem pretty on the ball..." -Zap Brannigan in Kif Gets Knocked Up a Notch

Re:Obligatory Futurama...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's from Where the Buggalo Roam. But who's counting ;P

Re:Obligatory Futurama...

[sirReal.83.]

Ah, crap. I had em on shuffle, and I thought I'd heard that longer ago than I did ;)

The State of Affairs

[jackstraw2323]

Not surprising, considering the morons I went to school with and the fact that we had one class about that sort of thing. We really ought to be failing more students don't you think?

Americans

[nukem996]

Most Americans do believe all of that. Schools just enforce it by blocking everything they don't feel is appropriate and not letting you speak your mind. America keeps getting more and more oppressive.

This shouldn't be surprising...

[damian cosmas]

...after all, most adults don't know the first amendment, either, when they go off about how parties other than the government are "violating their first amendment rights."

Re:This shouldn't be surprising...

[learn fast]

I knew people that said that the 2nd amendment meant they had the right to bring guns to work.

Re:This shouldn't be surprising...

[Hobadee]

...exactly. The problem is that most people think that the 1st amendment covers everything, but in fact, it only allows for those rights as long as they don't violate someone else's rights. Many people don't realize this. (Pretty sad, as it's just common curtesy anyways.)

Re:This shouldn't be surprising...

[FauxPasIII]

> parties other than the government are "violating
> their first amendment rights."

-nod- Your point is well taken. However, I would suggest that USian culture also has a tradition
of free speech that exists as a seperate entity from the first amendment, which codifies it into
law as relates to acts of Congress. Americans (in general) don't like ANYBODY restricting their
freedom of speech, whether Congress, their employer or the copyright holder of the software
they're reviewing. This may not relate to the first amendment, but that doesn't necessarily
invalidate the complaint imo.

Re:This shouldn't be surprising...

[brandonY]

Well, I dunno, the court has been considerably more lax in its enforcement of the 2nd amendment than the 1st. Freedom of speech turned out to mean that nobody can be silenced for any reason that isn't under the "fire in a crowded theatre" bit. I can burn a flag because it's speech. In theory, there's no reason why the 2nd amendment shouldn't be handled this way. Your friend should have the right to buy a gun on a street corner without giving his ID (do you have to present ID to protest against the government? Do felons no longer have a right to speak?) and waltz into work with it (do you have to stop sharing your political views at work?).

Re:This shouldn't be surprising...

[damian cosmas]

Absolutely. I know some people that are the same way about their guns...

Re:This shouldn't be surprising...

[I'm Spartacus!]

Actually, you don't seem to understand the First Amendment very well.

The First Amendment says that the federal government cannot restrict your right to free speech, religion, assembly, petition, and cannot stifle the free press. It doesn't say anything about the government granting said rights as long as they don't violate someone else's rights.

The First Amendment states what the federal government cannot do, not what it allows.

Re:This shouldn't be surprising...

[gantzm]

I knew people that said that the 2nd amendment meant they had the right to bring guns to work.

You have the right to carry a gun to work. But, your employer may not grant you the priviledge to carry on his property.

Re:This shouldn't be surprising...

[terrymr]

But that's the whole point ... the constitution is the people telling the government what it's limits are. It isn't a document telling the people what their rights are. It is stated that rights not granted to the government are reserved by people.

Re:This shouldn't be surprising...

[Jookey]

well techicnically your boss could fire you for talking smack or cursing at a customer etc.

In related findings...

[kzinti]

...eighty percent of the same group, when asked to locate the USA on a map of North America, pointed to Canada.

Re:In related findings...

[JLavezzo]

Did that group include the people conducting the study? Could be ...

Re:In related findings...

[slavemowgli]

Try asking them to find Iraq on a map of the world. There was a study that did just that a few years ago, and IIRC, more than 50% couldn't do it, even though they were currently at war with it.

Re:In related findings...

[Desval]

Not too far from the truth. Can you guess which county 70% of Orange County, FL high school graduates couldn't identify on a map? Hint: Its big and has Florida in its lower right hand side.

Re:In related findings...

[bcmm]

I think you are joking, but I did see some research like this, using a world map.
Don't know why, but the most common guess was Mexico...

Re:In related findings...

[I'm Spartacus!]

Hence, my all-time favorite quote:

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Re:In related findings...

[Anonymous Coward]

By county you mean which countRy?

Re:In related findings...

[kzinti]

Sure, I was joking. But there's a point hidden inside the joke: that our children are woefully ignorant on many subjects. Civics. Politics. Geography. Math. Science... ad nauseam.

Re:In related findings...

[yarbo]

"Despite the threat of war in Iraq and the daily reports of suicide bombers in Israel, less than 15 percent of the young U.S. citizens could locate either country." link

Re:In related findings...

[Anonymous Coward]

Baldwin County, Alabama?

How Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet.

And these are the same kids visiting the sites that post indecent material ;)

Re:This just in: American teens ignorant, apatheti

[Tackhead]

> Pictures at eleven.

But only if the government approves of the news article!

Yes, but..

[modifried]

How accurate can you consider the results to be? They're highschool kids. I remember when we had to fill out quizzes for things like this in my highschool (mostly smoking related ones). The idea of the quiz for us was to see who could make the best picture while only filling in dots, who can go the fastest, who can make the best use of the "Do not write in this space" area, and so forth.

Yuk

[mistersooreams]

This will be making some people very happy. Why make censorship laws when people are happy to censor themselves?

Here in the UK, there was recently a story that flag burning was indeed to be made illegal, because it was are common expression of anti-British sentiment. What better way to resolve dislike of Britain than to make any expression of it illegal! Of course, Britain has no First Amendment.

Re:Yuk

[jimicus]

Our government seems to be under the impression that making something illegal will deter people who are already criminals from doing it.

What other kind of logic do you expect?

Re:Yuk

[FCAdcock]

I don't think laws are made to keep criminals from doing things. Laws are made for keeping law-abiding citizens from doing certain things.

But then again, banning flag burning would only make law-abiding flag burners into criminals.

You know, a wise man once said that rules were ment to be broken...

Re:Yuk

[rogueuk]

I don't know about that. If the UK did pass a law about that the EU would probably be on their case about violating Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that all members of the EU have to agree to.

Article 11
Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

Re:Normally the other way around

[texwtf]

> Only half of the students said newspapers should
> be allowed to publish freely without government
> approval of stories

Maybe the kids thought the question was whether or not newspapers could publish without _corporate_ approval of stories.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[GigsVT]

In high school I was on the newspaper staff for a while. We had a major part of an issue planned for addressing sex in high school, with various stories and features.

The principal vetoed the whole deal.

Something similar recently came up at another, and the students just left an entire page blank as a protest.

How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?

Not a surprise

[Cthefuture]

I see it in kids today all the time.

This is most certainly due to living in the post-Napster, post-9/11, political & legal environment.

Re:Not a surprise

[globalar]

People have been ignorant of their own political condition for millenia. In history, it is rare that the majority of a society understands and acts on liberal democratic principles - even in so-called democracies.

Re:Not a surprise

[ThousandStars]

I fail to see how the demise or creation of Napster has anything whatsoever to do with knowledge of Government.

Duh

[Reality Master 101]

I choose to interpret this as (hopefully) students are smarter than we give them credit for.

Take this one: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."

Is there anybody who think that newspapers should be able to publish ANYTHING? Say, a list of witness protection program participants? The fact that you are a convicted child molestor, complete with picture, even if you're not? Hey, it's "freedom of speech", right?

Considering that many Slashdotter's knee-jerk reaction is that "all censorship is bad", I find this quite refreshing.

Re:Duh

[john_anderson_ii]

The fact that you are a convicted child molestor, complete with picture, even if you're not?
Well, if the AZ Republic published this story about me, I'd become a pretty rich guy. Last I checked, editorial mistake or not, slander still brings a high bounty in a civil suit, reguardless of intent.

Re:Duh

[Atzanteol]

Your post points out a major problem with most polls. They are almost always prime examples of the "false dilemma" fallacy. You're only given X options, when there are Y or Z options, and others that are not listed. Or yes/no questions are asked where there is no yes/no solution.

I take these with a grain of salt...

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Stupid.

Ever hear of libel or slander? Go read the damn dictionary.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what's libel and slander laws are for.

Re:Duh

[EvilJoker]

I think you're arguing semantics.
I saw that line and thought more along the lines of the Alien & Sedition Acts (or PATRIOT), not violating laws.

i.e. can Newspapers have an article about their local congressman's corruption, or failures of the government?
These would probably not be approved by the government, but is (still) perfectly legal.

Claiming someone is a convicted child molestor is libel (civil, not criminal case), and I believe witness protection lists are classified. This is illegal to have, just as it is illegal to publish.

Re:Duh

[jimicus]

The newspaper is free to do all of this. However, the first amendendment, AIUI, doesn't stop you from suing the hell out of the newspaper when they publish something which endangers your life.

Re:Duh

[Reality Master 101]

Last I checked, editorial mistake or not, slander still brings a high bounty in a civil suit, reguardless of intent.

Yes, but only because the law recognizes that first amendment rights don't take precedent over slander.

Re:Duh

[k98sven]

Is there anybody who think that newspapers should be able to publish ANYTHING? Say, a list of witness protection program participants? The fact that you are a convicted child molestor, complete with picture, even if you're not? Hey, it's "freedom of speech", right?

I think newspapers should be able to publish anything, without prior approval by anyone (except of course, the editor).

Re:Duh

[Ubergrendle]

If the newspaper prints your picture suggesting you are a child molester, and you are clearly not, you can sue the paper for libel. There is a legal recourse. In addition the newspaper's privileges under law as being a news organisation (e.g. protection of sources) would probably be voided if they were not acting responsibly. One argument eliminated...

As for the witness protection program, some people (like me) do not think that providing government protection of one criminal (e.g. Sammy the Bull) to convinct another criminal is very effective, or in the interest of justice. At the very least we could debate this point.

All censorship is bad. Even censorship in the face of total war is bad...its just that war is worse, and its a lesser of two evils.

PS The "war" against terrorism is not a war in any legal, traditional, or historical sense.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, the first amendendment, AIUI, doesn't stop you from suing the hell out of the newspaper when they publish something which endangers your life."

That's not a lot of consolation for the person who is now dead because of the paper's irresponsibility.

Re:Duh

[snorklewacker]

Is there anybody who think that newspapers should be able to publish ANYTHING? Say, a list of witness protection program participants? The fact that you are a convicted child molestor, complete with picture, even if you're not? Hey, it's "freedom of speech", right?

Boys and girls, today we're going to learn the words "prior restraint". Prior restraint is when the story has to be approved by the government before it's published, rather than holding the author accountable after it's published.

Some naughty trolls will pretend there's no difference between the two, and make up questions that would seem to justify prior restraint, but we're smarter than that, aren't we?

Class?

Re:Duh

[MeBadMagic]

You should be able to publish whatever you want, including false statements and sensitive information. That is what slander / liability laws are for. I say give'em enough rope to hang themselves.

Of course this opens up a whole new can of worms, and, even though I am supposed to have freedom of speach, I know I don't.

B-)

Re:Duh

[IndiJ]

In the slight chance that you or anyone that thinks your point is valid will be willing consider another view:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from taking responsibility for what you say. Go ahead and announce that I'm a child molester, and publish my name and picture if you want. Just be prepared to accept the consequences when I sue you for violating my rights and slandering my name.

Similar logic applies to publishing a list of protected people or national defence installments and strengths. People die when you do stuff like that, and by irresponsibly leaking such data publicly you are as good as killing them yourselves. This is not about free speech, it's about attempted murder. Be prepared to accept the consequences.

Freedom of speech is a right, but you have no right to take away other people's rights. It only takes a mildly intelligent individual to figure out how to put those two facts together, so give it a try.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Slander is spoken. When it's written, it's libel.

Re:Duh

[The Grey Clone]

Not all people in the Witness Protection Program are criminals.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the issue is not so "black and white". There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to disclose harmful information/disinformation about others.

Speech, as defined by Merriam-Webster is: the power of expressing or communicating THOUGHTS by speaking.

All of your examples, I believe, would fall closer to the THOUGHTLESS disclosure of harmful information/disinformation about others, thus excluding a vital property of speech: thought.

Re:Duh

[Reality Master 101]

Freedom of speech is a right, but you have no right to take away other people's rights. It only takes a mildly intelligent individual to figure out how to put those two facts together, so give it a try.

Unfortunately, this (typical Libertarian) logic doesn't hold up in the real world. I'm reminded of a Libertarian who tried to convince me that it should be legal for someone to shoot a gun at you -- as long as he misses. Until then, he has not violated your rights. But once he hits you, then he should be prosecuted.

Of course, the Libertarian was arguing that if you make the penalties Draconian enough, no one will fire the gun in the first place. But it's just silly logic, as most people can see. It's stupid to not have preventative measure that make it illegal in the first place to fire guns at people.

Same as with your logic. Sure, we could create the death penalty for anyone who publishes a Witness Protection list. But that doesn't help those who get killed by the crazy bastard who decides to publish it anyway.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but only because the law recognizes that first amendment rights don't take precedent over slander.

Wrong, dumbass.

The first amendment defends against prior restraint of speech by Congress through laws that restrict certain forms of publication. That does not mean all responsibility for the content is absolved--if I print total lies about, say, John Kerry, I can be sued in court after publication to prove the substance of my remarks or take responsibility for them through some form of punishment.

There are unwritten responsibilities that go along with the rights. Having the right to bear arms does not mean you can shoot up a school, for one example.

Re:Duh

[Lisandro]

Claiming someone is a convicted child molestor is libel (civil, not criminal case), and I believe witness protection lists are classified. This is illegal to have, just as it is illegal to publish.

Indeed. In my constitution (Argentinian) it's a basic constitutional right called Habeas data (loosely, "you own the data"), which grants anyone privacy regarding individual personal information. This includes medical records, felony records and others, so yes, you can't just publish them on a newspaper. It's paired with the "Habeas corpus" ("you own the body") right, which basically forbids imprisioning or detention without due process.

All of this is stuff i learned from Civic Rights class in highschool.

I can't find a link for it, but i'm pretty positive the US constitution grants these rights as well.

Re:Duh

[Lisandro]

Is there anybody who think that newspapers should be able to publish ANYTHING? Say, a list of witness protection program participants? The fact that you are a convicted child molestor, complete with picture, even if you're not? Hey, it's "freedom of speech", right?

It's not a matter of free speech: in most countries it's illegal to have sensitive personal information of third parties in the first place, let alone publish it. I'm sure it's the case in the US as well. Medical records and felony records included. Check a reply from me a couple of threads up.

Re:Duh

[Reality Master 101]

Wrong, dumbass.

As usual, RM101 is correct.

The first amendment defends against prior restraint of speech by Congress through laws that restrict certain forms of publication. That does not mean all responsibility for the content is absolved--if I print total lies about, say, John Kerry, I can be sued in court after publication to prove the substance of my remarks or take responsibility for them through some form of punishment.

-sigh- Actually, you can write just about anything you want about John Kerry. There are specific exemptions -- IN THE LAW -- about public figures. You seem to think libel/slander is some law of physics, but it's not. They are specific exception to Freedom of Speech, just like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

There are unwritten responsibilities that go along with the rights. Having the right to bear arms does not mean you can shoot up a school, for one example.

Sorry, but these are quite written, not unwritten.

Re:Duh

[IndiJ]

It's stupid to not have preventative measure that make it illegal in the first place to fire guns at people.

Sure, we could create the death penalty for anyone who publishes a Witness Protection list. But that doesn't help those who get killed by the crazy bastard who decides to publish it anyway.

I'm sorry, but what in the hell are you saying? That the government and all authorities should have the right to review and censor a work before it's published, just to eliminate the threat of a few crazy bastards?

Honestly, I don't see what you're point is. You say that laws with punishments as preventative measures are necessary, but don't necessary stop all infractions so ______________________ (fill in the blank please, what should be done?).

Your gun analogy works fine for me. Make shooting at someone illegal (as opposed to just hitting them). But why make shooting guns illegal period? Make the gun owner responsible for his actions. It won't stop all murders, but neither will making shooting illegal (just use a knife).

Make releasing dangerous information illegal. But why make all speech illegal? Make the speaker responsible for their actions. It won't stop all violations of national security, but neither will making speech illegal (the person with the dangerous information can just go kill all the witnesses themselves).

Re:Duh

[HeghmoH]

Is there anybody who think that newspapers should be able to publish ANYTHING? Say, a list of witness protection program participants? The fact that you are a convicted child molestor, complete with picture, even if you're not? Hey, it's "freedom of speech", right?

Yes, I do. Freedom of speech can't be done in half measures, and you have to take the bad with the good.

Re:Duh

[Reality Master 101]

Make releasing dangerous information illegal. But why make all speech illegal?

Er, who talked about making all speech illegal? Your point was that all speech should be legal, only with consequences after the fact, and my point was that doesn't work in the real world.

Re:Duh

[EvilJoker]

Seems a bit idealistic...Who would listen to a published child molester?

(Meant tongue-in-cheek, but consider at what point a convicted molester lost all rights- and I can guarantee it wasn't when the verdict was handed down, it was probably when the story was first reported in the media)

Re:Duh

[Money for Nothin']

There *are* more reasonable libertarians out there, usually denoted by the "small-l", rather than the "big-L"...

I consider myself of the "small-l" (i.e. not strictly aligned with the loony U.S. Libertarian Party) variety. My take on your "shooting a gun at somebody as long as they miss" scenario is there are a couple problems within such an action:

1) It violates the victim's right to be left alone. They are being harassed in a physically-threatening manner by another person -- hence, it's a violation of their personal physical liberty (from other people).

2) The freedom to do something is premised on the idea that one is responsible for their actions, which in turn is premised on the ability of the individual to *control* their actions. One largely cannot control where a bullet will go once the trigger has been pulled except in a specifically-designed environment (such as a shooting range), hence, it's possible for the bullet to ricochet and hit somebody else, it's possible for the victim to move at just the right moment and in the right direction such that they would be shot, and so forth. Hence, I agree with you that firing a gun in somebody's general direction (without their permission) ought to remain illegal, unlike your "Libertarian" associate.

It is this reason of control that, even while I advocate lowering barrier to owning and carrying firearms (including automatic weapons) and scaling back many of the things which infringe the 2nd Amendment, I diverge from the more-radical, less-reasonable libertarian elements who advocate allowing people to own nukes and such. I agree that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of virtually any size are arms which cannot be controlled by the individual. After all, once a nuke is detonated, how do you have control over exactly who it harms? You don't; even if it is of such small size as to kill one person or a small group of people (e.g. like a grenade), the radioactive fallout will render the land around its detonation unusable for thousands of years - hence, it harms future generations.

That said, penalties for improper handling of firearms, whether intentional or not, should be extremely severe, else, the justification of banning things "for our own good" sees common use and the responsibility of the individual -- and therefore, their rights -- get waived, regardless of whether they are competent to wield those rights.

In all cases, with increased freedoms comes an increased level of responsibility... And being of a libertarian persuasion, IMO it's better that we permit those freedoms and associate hefty penalties for abusing them, rather than to trod the totalitarian path of restricting peoples' rights for "the good of society." Those who are competent to wield those responsibilities, may do so, those who prove themselves incompetent and harm others in the process will wind up in prison and/or pay hefty amounts of damages, and those who choose not to wield those responsibilities at all have nothing to fear from those who do (at least in an ideal world, as if such a world exists. But it is nevertheless the world to which we ought to aspire...).

Re:Duh

[DJCF]

the first amendendment, AIUI, doesn't stop you from suing the hell out of the newspaper when they publish something which endangers your life.

Wont do much good if you're dead, though, will it?

News Flash!

[Anonymous Coward]

American children found to be ignorant.

Film at 11.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[mikesmind]

That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers. They want people who follow the status quo.

The role of public schools isn't to produce free thinkers and speakers. It is to get the masses to submit to the government.

Sad, for sure.

[Second_Infinity]

That is not saying that the student's don't understand the 1st ammendment. You can understand something but realize it needs fine tuning. You can understand but disagree with, as well. While I may not like how certain companies (CBS) address certain stories (forged documents) I also realize that it's part of the greatness of this country in being able to say what you want, when you want. I may disagree with certain things that are said, but at least we get to have discussions about whether it was right or wrong. Filtering news through the government is a VERY bad idea, no matter how you look at it. Yes, there's sometimes a reason to stifle a story because of a matter of national security, but those are so few and far between that they shouldn't even be an issue.

U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either...

[VE3ECM]

Seriously, I wonder what the results would be if this study were stretched out to include adults as well as teenagers?

I'd bet dollars-to-donuts the results would be almost identical.

The problem isn't with the kids; it's the system that allows these kids to develop ideas like these that's the problem.
No child left behind, indeed. Does it count when they've *all* been left behind?

From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Marxist Hacker 42]

(might be my flamebait post for the week)

Based on November's vote, 51% of Americans don't believe in the First Ammendment anymore anyway- and think the second is far more important. Why should we be surprised that our kids follow suit

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Wubby]

Where are my mod points when I need them.... This one goes UP!

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Cosmos_7]

Without the 2nd, how can the people truely defend the 1st?

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[mikesmind]

Based on November's vote

Yes, and we were put to shame in Iraq. Look at what most of those people risked to go and vote. What is risked in the U.S.? A few minutes of your time.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Gob Blesh It]

Uh, no. Look, I dislike Bush and "his" administration passionately, but that's just pure flamebait... and offtopic, I might add.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Kiryat Malachi]

Without the 1st, why bother using the 2nd to defend anything?

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[CapnGib]

So let's see your militia get its shit together and start defending the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights. That's what it is there for no?

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Stevyn]

This is bullshit. 51% of Americans aren't gun carrying hicks from the south. Lots of rational people all over the country voted for Bush because Kerry sounded like an elitist bullshitter who would say anything to make people happy. People voted on their gut instinct for the person they trusted more.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[MoebiusStreet]

Implying that Democrats are fighting for our free speech? Bah!

Wasn't it the Clinton administration that gave beginnings of Congress's desperate grasp at Internet pornograpy controls (ala COPA)? Didn't they twist arms to try to implement Clipper?

To be sure, Republicans trample our rights, including free speech, but if you believe that Democrats are protecting those right, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Abm0raz]

That is precisely why I didn't vote for Kerry and voted for who I did. I didn't vote for Bush, either (yes Virginia, there were more than 2 candidates running).

-Ab

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, if the purpose of the 2nd is to defend the 1st, then I'd have to say a certain law against the 1st (the law against nuclear proliferation among the people) has already defeated the 2nd (because that's the only weapon you can really use against the federal government and hope to win).

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Changer2002]

This is the second time I've seen this statement on this topic. Since (arguably) the Civil War, when was the last time the right to bear arms has been used to protect the 1st, or any other freedoms? Is the only reason why the government doesn't take more of our rights away due to some people carrying guns? Of course that's not reason enough to do away with it, but it just seems silly to say that without the 2nd you can't defend the 1st.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Wubby]

Well, I would have modded it as funny anyways.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the meaning of the word "militia" is at the whole heart of the debate. Gun control advocates have successfully redifined the word to mean either "the army" or "a bunch of radicalist nutjobs"

The meaning of the word when the amendment was written was closer to "armed civilians who defend their neighborhood". This was why James Madison, in his first inaugural address, promised: "to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics--that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe".

Redefining terms is one way to reframe a debate. After all, nobody cared about saving the wetlands back when they miasmal swamps.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And in so doing- they voted for the person most likely to take away 1st Ammendment rights. The person they trusted more had already betrayed them- repeatedly, from the "liberalization" of trade with southeast asia to the standing down of our air force on September 11, 2001 to the friendship with terrorists like Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, this guy has done nothing OTHER than betray that trust- but I'll agree- the people elected who they could better understand. Given American business today- such betrayal of ethics and decency is quite common.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Implying that Democrats are fighting for our free speech? Bah!

More implying that other choices- such as the libertarians, real liberals, conservatives, and socialists support free speech rights far more than the neo* whackos.

Wasn't it the Clinton administration that gave beginnings of Congress's desperate grasp at Internet pornograpy controls (ala COPA)? Didn't they twist arms to try to implement Clipper?

Neoliberal whacko != liberal; his wife also tried to implement a so-called universal health care plan that would have left exactly the same people in charge (HMO executives) who are sucking the most money out of the current system.

To be sure, Republicans trample our rights, including free speech, but if you believe that Democrats are protecting those right, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Republicans are overt- democrats are covert. Those who actually believe in those rights are a minority- especially when those rights conflict with earning a profit.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Anonymous Coward]

' And in so doing- they voted for the person most likely to take away 1st Ammendment rights '

Yes, Bush voted for McCain-Feingold (the worst hit the 1st Amendment has ever taken), but Kerry would have voted for it quicker.

' betrayed them- repeatedly, from the "liberalization" of trade with southeast asia '

No one was betrayed by this. In fact, the people were empowered (they are able to make trade decisions that formerly were left just to government elites).

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun control advocates have successfully redifined the word to mean either "the army" or "a bunch of radicalist nutjobs"

No they haven't. If they did private citizens would not be permitted to bear arms.

Now go back to your corner and redefine "arms" to include fun things like assault weapons and exclude scary things like vials of anthrax and nuclear weapons.

Since we are redefining terms, a "militia" = "terrorist cell" if it aims to defend freedom from the increasing grips of the government.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[CapnGib]

...but it just seems silly to say that without the 2nd you can't defend the 1st.

Yeah, but it does make a good bumper sticker.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[MoneyT]

Assult Weapon is a fancy term for "Scary Looking Hunting Rifle"

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you were in a predominantly democratic riding; in which case, you could spend the entire day in a lineup to vote. Though, with a significantly higher chance of making it home alive.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're from one of the less wealthy neighbourhoods of a US city, where it tends to be more like a few hours, due to fewer & shoddier voting machines, and more understaffing, etc.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Bush voted for McCain-Feingold (the worst hit the 1st Amendment has ever taken), but Kerry would have voted for it quicker.

And when was Bush ever a legislator VOTING on McCain-Feingold, bright boy?

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Anonymous Coward]

N.B.: Despite the strong similarities, NOT the same AC as the first AC responding to grandparent. But probably in strong agreement.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The 9th and 10th?

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Now go back to your corner and redefine "arms" to include fun things like assault weapons and exclude scary things like vials of anthrax and nuclear weapons.

IF the intention of the 2nd Ammendment isn't merely to have a means of providing food for one's family by killing game- IF it is to protect us, as a last resort, from a tyranical leader taking over the country, then it does follow that arms includes EVERYTHING the US government currently uses- including assault weapons like the M-16, anthrax, poison gas, and yes, nuclear weapons. If not- well- better be prepared for your definition to become reality- militia=terrorist cell.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes, Bush voted for McCain-Feingold (the worst hit the 1st Amendment has ever taken), but Kerry would have voted for it quicker.

More stupid perception overcoming reality I see. Hint- Bush not only never voted for McCain-Feingold, he very quickly decided that the spending limits in it applied to everybody other than him- and raised hundreds of millions for his campaign.

No one was betrayed by this. In fact, the people were empowered (they are able to make trade decisions that formerly were left just to government elites).

Nope, sorry. It's just a different set of government elites is all- instead of our elected representatives, all trade must now be vetted by the World Trade Organization- and individual citizens are still left out. MORE left out if anything- as part of our sovereign rights as a nation have now been turned over to the WTO who has the sole right to write, interpret, or nullify our trade agreements.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[lgw]

Actually, the meaning of the word "militia" is at the whole heart of the debate.

Actually, the meaning of the word "militia" is largely irrelevant:

Prefactory clause: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
Operating law: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The preface may clarify but not restrict the operating law. The "militia" part is a comment, not code. Anyway, the first four amendments all grant rights to individuals as individuals, and "the people" means "each person" throughout the constitution, so both the language and the context make it clear that this is a right of an individual regardless of membership in any group such as a militia.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Guppy06]

As opposed to the cute and cuddly bolt-action rifles?

I can see it now: the Rainbow Monkey 30.06...

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[ageoffri]

To those who marked the parent "Funny" you have just shown your ignorance. The parent poster was dead serious. The so called Assault Weapon Ban did not ban true Assault Weapons. It banned hunting and target rifles that were designed to look lik Assault Weapons. The parent really should have been Interesting or Insightful.

Always amazes me how many people and organizations will defend the 1st Amendment but tear down the 2nd Amendment. We lose one Amendment and we are well on our way to losing them all. Take away the 1st Amendment and it becomes hard to get the truth out there. Take away the 2nd Amendment and you take the People's defense away.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Chrontius]

Why the hell are you modding this funny? It's true. (Mind you they're not usually powerful enough to actually hunt with, but the Gov't doesn't seem to like civilians having powerful weapons, re: 50bmg -- they can't seem to make up their mind lately. Either you can't use it because it's not powerful enough (5.56 NATO vs. deer) or becasue it's too powerful (.50BMG vs. Stryker) Unfortunately, these two categories sometimes seem to overlap.)

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Kiryat Malachi]

Article [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If my government won't allow me to speak freely, to practice (or not practice) the religion I choose, to speak to other people about these thoughts... I really don't care so much if I have other unspecified rights.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[alan_dershowitz]

"Assault Weapon" is a fake term that was invented specifically because it had no meaning, and sounded like the well-defined term "Assault Rifle". Banning "assault rifles" was worthless to these people because by definition an assault rifle is fully automatic, which have already been banned since, like, 1924.

On the other hand, make up a phony word that means whatever you want it to, and you can ban anything, including those darn scary looking rifles with the foldable stock that function EXACTLY like a stinking normal hunting rifle. But they look scary. And banning them makes me look like I'm doing my job as a congresswoman.

Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights

[Anonymous Coward]

To those who marked the parent "Funny" you have just shown your ignorance.

No, they've shown they have a sense of humor. It's funny because it's true. So don't get your panties in a twist. The AWB has sunset and it's unlikely to ever rear its head again. You can stop fighting it now. The Dems are either too stubborn or too stupid to see that that one piece of legislation has cost them election after election for a decade. It may be the only redeeming consequence of the Bush regime, but I for one am thankful for it.

most *adults* forget about 2nd amendment too

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that most *adults* also fail to realize what the 2nd amendment actually states. I believe all amendments carry equally the same amount of weight and it's a damn shame that people don't really take ALL of them too heart, not just one or two of them.

http://www.packing.org/ has some really useful info on the 2nd amendment.

No Child Left Behind

[Anonymous Coward]

It's working! The "Leave the First Amendment Behind" act is succesful beyond the Administration's wildest dreams.

flag burning?

[radarsat1]

i don't live in the states, but i was always told that flag burning was illegal for americans...

it's not?
news to me.

can anyone tell me the exact law on this? i'm just curious..

Re:flag burning?

[dalamarian]

A few years ago they tried to pass a law that banned it, but it died. It is perfectly legal to burn the flag.

Re:flag burning?

[The Grey Clone]

Law.umkc.edu Reading that seems show the it's only legal/illegal depending on the mood that the Supreme Court is in that day.

Re:flag burning?

[slavemowgli]

It's not, but depending on where you live, you might not want to do it anyway unless you want to risk being lynched by an angry mob.

(Just to be sure it's not misunderstood, that was a rather cynical comment, but there is more than a grain of truth in it.)

Re:flag burning?

[justkevin]

There is a law in the U.S. Code that specifically bans the desecration of the flag (actually it what it restricts is pretty broad-- you can't put any images or markings on it at all). However, in 1988 the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning was protected free speech. So there is a law on the books banning flag burning, however it has been ruled unconstitutional.

Re:flag burning?

[smooth wombat]

can anyone tell me the exact law on this? i'm just curious..

The First Amendment. Flag burning is considered free speech no matter how much certain groups in this country want you to believe otherwise.

Speech does not necessarily mean the spoken word. Giving a thumbs up is a form of speech. So is writing something down.

Do a search for Supreme Court cases dealing with flag burning. The Justices can provide you with a more lucid description of why flag burning is free speech.

Re:flag burning?

[hsmith]

afaik also burning a flag is the only way to "properly" destroy an old flag

Re:flag burning?

[caller_number_six]

http://www.esquilax.com/flag/

Re:flag burning?

[EvilJoker]

Last I checked (could've changed), flag burning was ruled to be a form a free speech (specifically, against the government), and was thus protected by the first amendment.

Re:flag burning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct.

What galls me is those who adorn their car with American flags, then let them get so tattered you can hardly tell it's a flag. Those who pretend to be patriotic have no idea how to properly care for their flag! Oh the irony. I should print up fliers with choice quotes from the flag code and put it on their windshields.

Re:flag burning?

[44BSD]

The flag code does not criminalize anything. This is left to the states, and many have laws criminalizing 'flag abuse'. From the U.S. Flag Code:

Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to 1 year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

Of course the state laws are of dubious constitutionality ;^)

Re:flag burning?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://1stam.umn.edu/main/pubop/flag-burning.htm

There are no such laws. It's a myth. Though I'd imagine that it's likely that an officer could attempt to jail you for such an act. American's are (allegedly) protected by the first amendment in this case.

Re:flag burning?

[TekMonkey]

First Amendment Center is a great site to find out more about the first ammendment. There's an article about flag-burning specifically: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/flagbur ning/overview.aspx?id=562&SearchString=flag_burnin g

Re:flag burning?

[renehollan]

As others have noted, burning the U.S. flag (in protest) is not illegal.

However, while I will defend another's rights be exercised in that manner, I also consider it about the most offensive thing one can do, considering how many died fighting for the ideals it represents -- surely there must be a better way to protest a present government: hanging an straw charicature of the president in efegy, perhaps. (Though, threats against the life of the U.S. president are serious crimes, and not taken lightly by the Secret Service.)

While not an American citizen, I presently reside (legally, I am a resident for tax purposes, and a non-resident for immigration purposes present with a valid non-immigrant visa) in the U.S. and have a great deal of respect for the ideals behind the flag, if not always agreeing with the present policies of the government. I was royally pissed off, for example, when my daughter's elementary school flew the flag at full staff, after sunset, with no illumination.

Bottom line: while it may be legal to burn the U.S. flag in protest, I would not want to be the company who wrote the life insurance policy on anyone doing so. It really ranks up there as things not to do.

Re:flag burning?

[kmhebert]

The proper way to dispose of a worn-out U.S. flag is to burn it in an appropriate setting with proper respect.

Re:flag burning?

[slavemowgli]

I'd much rather burn a picture of shrub than a flag, but unfortunately, I think that might earn me a free trip to camp x-ray.

As for the flag itself, well, it's just a piece of cloth (or whatever it's made of), and while most people will whole-heartedly support the actual principles it is supposed to represent, one cannot deny that it does not only represent those but also a number of other, much less pleasant things associated with US-american politics (and politicians), so I think burning a flag is an understandable action, especially when you take into account that a good part of the reason why someone does it will also be the shock value. Sometimes, it's necessary to do things that may be viewed as radical or outrageous to draw attention to an important point that would otherwise be lost or ignored.

That being said, it's good to hear that there are still people out there who understand that "I don't like this" is not the same as "this should be made illegal".

But of course, just to make it clear, it *also* does not mean "it's not illegal but the government will look the other way if someone happens to be beaten up or harassed or whatever else", either.

Re:flag burning?

[loqi]

hanging an straw charicature of the president in efegy, perhaps

Under normal circumstances, these are both equally pointless gestures meant to do nothing but offend. So who cares? It's not like they're digging up the graves of revolutionary soldiers... why does the symbol mean even more to you than the thoughts and beliefs of the flag burners?

Anyway, I can see exactly one context in which flag burning becomes a meaningful exercise: To protest such a restriction from being in place. Today, I have nothing but indifference to morons who burn flags and think it means something. If it was illegalized tomorrow, I'd be on the street with some gasoline and the stars and stripes in a flash.

Re:flag burning?

[TechnologyX]

From the Flag Code:
"A Flag may be a flimsy bit of printed gauze, or a beautiful banner of finest silk. Its intrinsic value may be trifling or great; but its real value is beyond price, for it is a precious symbol of all that we and our comrades have worked for and lived for, and died for-a free Nation of free men, true to the faith of the past, devoted to the ideals and practice of Justice, Freedom and Democracy. "

That part just made me laugh out loud.

Re:flag burning?

[Mnemia]

There's a certain irony to the idea of banning flag-burning. The flag is supposed to represent an ideal of freedom, but you're not free to burn it? Like it or not, burning the flag is clearly political speech. It shows more respect for the flag and what it stands for to let everyone keep the freedom to burn it if they choose. If we take away the freedom to participate in any political speech we want to, then the flag becomes just a meaningless piece of cloth undeserving of protection anyway.

Re:flag burning?

[renehollan]

If it was illegalized tomorrow, I'd be on the street with some gasoline and the stars and stripes in a flash.

I suppose I'd have to support such an action, with vigor, knowing what it represents in that limited context. I'd probably even supply the matches (though, as a foreigner, I would not think it my place to actually participate fully).

Still, regardless of the justification, it is not something I would welcome -- if the legal environment permits such desecration, I can't see it as warranted; and if it is warrented for the reason you mention, I would not wish for such a legal environment to come to pass.

Re:flag burning?

[drinkypoo]

As a wise man once said, the flag is a symbol and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded. Personally I find the government's total disregard for its citizenry to be far more offensive than any flag burning could ever be. As another wise man once said (I loosely paraphrase) any flag that's worth a damn was born from fire anyway. The flag is a symbol, and burning it is a symbol. As matter is never created or destroyed, it's just changing one thing into another thing. Of course, most people have a hard time just getting past the issue that you're burning a flag - as you do. You say the flag represents ideals, but our government doesn't actually live by those ideals, and as you say so-called threats to the president are treated seriously even many times when they are not serious, so what's left? Burning an effigy of the seal of the united states? I suppose it would be a clearer message, but no one would take it seriously.

I find it a lot more offensive to hide behind the flag while ruining all the things it stands for than to burn it, which is at least honest.

Re:flag burning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ye he he... huh?

Re:flag burning?

[leomekenkamp]

'I talk of freedom, you talk of the flag.' White Discussion - Live.

IMHO (I'm european) it is dangerous to put too much weight on that flag. 'The ideals it represents', well, that is mainly the constitution, isn't it? Is burning the constitution (text) also highly offensive? What about half of the text. Or one sentence. One word?

A flag is a piece of cloth. Period. It often seems to me that neocons would love the US public to 'unite behind the flag' instead of 'unite behind the constitution', so that the flag becomes more important than the constitution and they can put their own definition on what the flag stands for.

The second of the ten christian commandments is that you should not make a representation of JHWH; IMHO simply for the fact that the representation could become more important than JHWH himself; one should not worship a golden animal.

Putting a national flag on a pedestool (sp?) has the same risks as putting 'Blut und Boden' on a pedestool.

Re:flag burning?

[michaelggreer]

I was royally pissed off, for example, when my daughter's elementary school flew the flag at full staff, after sunset, with no illumination.

Don't you think that a rather extreme reaction? Its not a religious object. Nothing happens to people's souls if the flag is touched by the rays of the moon. Relax.

Re:flag burning?

[Wescotte]

i don't live in the states, but i was always told that flag burning was illegal for americans

I don't quite understand the purpose behind flag burning. You're wasting resources and poluting the air (sure it's minute). I personally believe when a person must resort to "hey look at me" tatics they really don't have anything worth listening to in the first place. While I agree we should be able to burn a flag in protest I feel it's a quite a simple-minded way to make a statement.

Eric

Re:flag burning?

[lgw]

IANALB, the state laws may be fine. Burning a flag only recieves first amendment status when it is an act of political expression. Flag abuse may still be criminal if the intent is other than political expression. Of course, that intent might be hard to prove.

Re:flag burning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, IIRC, the Flag Code (that law in the U.S. Code) expressly allows the burning of the flag as a dignified manner to dispose of an old flag because throwing it in the garbage would be considered desecration.

Re:flag burning?

[Yunzil]

However, while I will defend another's rights be exercised in that manner, I also consider it about the most offensive thing one can do, considering how many died fighting for the ideals it represents

And one of those ideals is the freedom to say that you think the government sucks; and there's few ways to do that better than burning the symbol of that government.

-- surely there must be a better way to protest a present government:

Doubtful.

Re:flag burning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Immediately after this ruling South Carolina passed a law providing for a $1 fine for assaulting someone who is in the act of burning The Flag ;)

Re:flag burning?

[renehollan]

Don't you think that a rather extreme reaction?

Given that she start's off each school day reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:

'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all;'

I consider it the height of hyporcracy for the school to disrespect that to which they request such unwavering allegience.

(And yes, personally, I'd prefer if 'under God' were removed -- it's a recent (c. 1952, IIRC) addition. Or, do we accept GB I's view that athesists and agnostics not count?)

Despite the tramplings the U.S. Constitution may have received as of late, it holds great value to those of us who have sufferred under other regimes. It is reasonable that the flag serve as a symbol of the ideals within (and lest someone scoff at symbolism, overt expression of intangible ideas can only occur via representative symbolism, the dangers of confusing the symbol for the ideals duely noted).

So, desecrate it if you must -- you have that right, after all. But, do not expect me to be supportive. Given that all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, I'd even consider the school's indifference a greater offence.

They aren't confused / misunderstanding completely

[adzoox]

The ammendment says Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press...

This statement is inaccurate:

"Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories"

BUT

Everyone thinks this means the press have the right or even the responsibility to report everything without impunity from libel/slander or trade theft. Wrong! It says the government can't take your right away to speak - but does NOT any WAY protect the press from having free reign from civil litigation.

I also would like to add that foreign press seems to think they have 1st ammendment rights in the US as well and bastardize our law on a day to day basis.

If you're not taught this...

[YrWrstNtmr]

...there is little reason to believe that you should know it. Knowledge of what the 1st Amendment really means is not born with you. You must be taught it. And if those classes are lacking in the school, and/or you have a crappy teacher...
Also, just as obviously, the teacher and school shouldn't be the sole place to impart this knowledge. Start at home.

And on a related note...this is why teenagers shouldn't vote. There are the very few extremely intelligent ones that do understand the ramifications, but most need a little bit of maturity first.

Re:If you're not taught this...

[The Grey Clone]

[b]this is why teenagers shouldn't vote. There are the very few extremely intelligent ones that do understand the ramifications, but most need a little bit of maturity first.[/b] Basically what I got from the Slashdot blurb was that about half the kids knew about the freedom of speech, et cetera. What you fail to look at is that the fact that these teenagers are going to be voting in the next election, and they still won't know anything about it.

Re:If you're not taught this...

[YrWrstNtmr]

These 'same' newly minted teenagers voted in the last election. And the one before that. And the one before that.

There is a large bit of growing up and maturing between, say, 15 and 19.

Re:If you're not taught this...

[Martin Blank]

The total percentage of voters 18-29 was 17%, just about the same as usual. Yes, more of them went to the polls, but more people voted in general. I suspect the number of people 18-20 was pretty tiny as a total, but about in line with prior years.

Re:If you're not taught this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally wouldn't be opposed to raising the voting age back to 21 as I believe it was there to start with for a damn good reason (exercising the right to vote requires responsibility and experience that teenagers lack), but the military stopped accepting (and lost the ability to draft) enlistees younger than the new voting age.

Re:If you're not taught this...

[Tony]

And on a related note...this is why teenagers shouldn't vote. There are the very few extremely intelligent ones that do understand the ramifications, but most need a little bit of maturity first.

Dude, by that criteria, most *adults* shouldn't vote.

'Tis True

[TekMonkey]

I am a high school student. In one of my classes, we have bi-monthly discussions about current events that last the entire period. It amazes me how little some students know about our government. And to be honest, I can't blame them. The only time we ever studied the government was in 8th grade civics. Sure you can take Government class, but there are no other mandatory classes that teach students about our government in my school district.

Re:'Tis True

[hsmith]

No, the classes deamed important are basket making and fingerpainting, while children are not taught skills that will get them through their whole lives, such as government and finances. Yeah basketweaving is nice to know, but it is something you can do on your own time.

School shouldn't be fun, it should be a place where you learn what you need to get you through your life. Litercy in the 1600-1700's was ~90-95%, higher than what it is now.

Re:'Tis True

[TekMonkey]

Well, maybe in Elementary schools. But even in high school, I haven't had a single mandatory class about government. And that fact about literacy doesn't sound right at all. Where did you find that?

Re:'Tis True

[Martin Blank]

Everything I see (CIA, World Bank, UNESCO, NationMaster) says 97%-99% for the current population, and that's above what it was 200 years ago, when literacy rates were between 65% and 95%, depending on location, status, and gender, and also depending on who did the study and how biased was its methodology. Generally speaking, women and non-whites had lower literacy rates.

Now, you can argue levels of literacy, which may well be a completely different story, but overall literacy is above what it was.

Re:'Tis True

[Anonymous Coward]

School shouldn't be fun, it should be a place where you learn what you need to get you through your life.

This is a contradiction to me as learning what you need to get you through your life should be fun. History is an interesting subject, but many schools teach it in a thoroughly boring way, which causes students to forget everything from class right after the test and in large part accounts for the so-called stupidity of Americans.

Re:'Tis True

[Kiryat Malachi]

Literacy for rich white men was ~95% in the 1700s, but I'm willing to bet dem black folk didn't read so good. Wimminfolk too.

(I.E. What kind of crack have you been smoking? The population now is more literate, as a whole, than the whole population during the 1700s.)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Homology]

Now this is NOT an insignificant study. 100k students and only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories? Excuse me? This misinformation must be coming from somewhere... Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?

They are just watching too much American "news", and in particular Fox "news". Heck, the majority of the US population believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. Go figure.

Re:Normally the other way around

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference?

Student Newspapers and the FA

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote some text on student newspapers and the first amendment.. ..the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school..

To an extent the students have it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Things like libel in the printed media and slander on TV and in public does suggest that the press cannot freely print anything.

Re:To an extent the students have it right

[GigsVT]

Libel and slander against public figures is basically an impossible task to pursue. In other words, they can sue you, but they will always lose.

Re:To an extent the students have it right

[Anonymous Coward]

If what you are saying is provably false, they can certainly win.

Re:To an extent the students have it right

[Shajenko42]

No, public figures also have to prove malice on the part of the publisher. Simple falsehood isn't enough.

Re:To an extent the students have it right

[GigsVT]

Only if they can prove malice and a reckless disregard for the truth. Most comedy type work is protected too. The standards are high, it's nearly impossible for them to win.

Prioities priorities...

[bizmark22]

ask any one of them students what birth control, stds and sex are all about, and they can probably mop the floor with your average /. crowd.

Re:Prioities priorities...

[TekMonkey]

That's very true. Every year since the fifth grade, they've shoved it down our throats. My first class about government was 8th grade Civics. It is the only time you are every required to know it.

Re:Prioities priorities...

[bizmark22]

Now ask the two groups about pickup lines and getting laid, and your average high school kid is going to launch into a 3 hour diatribe. Your average /.er is going to say "Huh? Is that a new linux distro?"

Separation of Church and State

[Anonymous Coward]

These would be high-school kids from high-schools that teach creationism in science classes? It's no wonder they don't understand the 1st amendment if their schools casually violate it by ignoring the separation of church and state.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[adzoox]

Tell us where in the constitution or the Bill Of Rights there are the words:

"Separation of Church & State"

Also tell us why people such as yourself commonly leave out the OTHER words ... or free exercise thereof.

Those kids who put stickers on those books have the right to exercise their beliefs freely and they have the right to freedom of speech.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't stay away huh? Oh well, I suppose three days felt like an eternity for you.

And FYI, "kids" didn't stickers on books, the school board did. But you knew that, didn't you?

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us where in the constitution or the Bill Of Rights there are the words:
Give us back our precious
If u aren't Gollum could you care to explain who u mean by 'us'. The 'thereof' exists in the bumper stickers cos u cant fit in the whole bill or rights in one tiny bumper sticker (even if u live in TX)

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha Ha ... looks like he also said this:

"The stories have become repeats, too politically charged, and so troll filled that one can no longer have intelligent conversations here."

"And FYI, "kids" didn't stickers on books, the school board did. But you knew that, didn't you?"

And FYI - you have a serious grammar problem.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Anonymous Coward]

Those kids who put stickers on those books have the right to exercise their beliefs freely and they have the right to freedom of speech.

It wasn't kids, it was an enforced decision. They sure do have rights, and if they want to mail every kid a sticker they can put on their book, let 'em do so. But that's not how they did it, is it?

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us where in the constitution or the Bill Of Rights there are the words:

"adzoox is smart"

Not there, are they?

Q.E.D.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[MightyMartian]

> Those kids who put stickers on those books have
> the right to exercise their beliefs freely and
> they have the right to freedom of speech.

Of course they do. By the same token, a student who has a sticker saying "Yahweh is a fraud invented by the power-hugnry to control your mind" are also protected, but I wouldn't want to be the kid in many US public schools who put that on his book.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[drinkypoo]

Congress shall make no law blah blah blah, you didn't read that part? Try reading Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, which is pretty easy to find with google. It says that you cannot have religious freedom - freedom to HAVE religion - if the church and the state are one. The intent was clear and frankly it's pretty easy to decipher just by reading the amendment. Congress is not to make a law that respects or prohibits any religion. Since government works by law, there is your separation of church and state. This all basically came out of observation of England, in which place it was very bad to be a protestant some years and a catholic other years depending on which kind of regent was on the throne. It meant that there was no religious freedom. It was not an attempt to stop religious people from running the country, because it doesn't matter why people vote the way they do, only that they voice their opinion. It was only an attempt to ensure that people would be allowed to HAVE an opinion.

Even more scary..

[revscat]

From the CNN article:

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

People die to defend these rights, and some of our students don't even know what these rights are?

Hey conservatives! Maybe if instead of worrying about absitence only education and attacking Darwinism you spent your efforts in communicating why and how we are a free society, and why that is of tantamount importance, we could all get along here, hm? Cuz I'll be honest with you, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with James "Spongebob Is Gay" Dobson if it means we get the message out loud and clear about the Bill of RIghts.

Re:Even more scary..

[Overt Coward]

James "Spongebob Is Gay" Dobson

Nit-pick -- Dobson was widely mis-quoted and over-analyzed. He was complaining about a pro-gay organization that used familiar cartoon characters (SpongeBob by name, given the current popularity) in their materials. He never said that SpongeBob was gay.

Re:Even more scary..

[valkraider]

Have you ever seen the show? He [sponge bob] is freaking gay.

But not the "I could have my own sitcom" homosexual gay.

Spongebob is "gay" in the "Oh my god this crap is gay" "gay".

It's a joke. Laugh it up Fuzzball!

Re:Even more scary..

[ignorant_newbie]

>Hey conservatives! Maybe if instead of worrying
>about absitence only education and attacking
>Darwinism

You're commiting the common mistake of confusing conservativism ( an economic theory ) with the ?BS that the republican party spouts to appeal to the bible belt. The guys in power in the US aren't conservatives... they don't stand for a single traditional conservative value.

Re:Even more scary..

[hackstraw]

People die to defend these rights, and some of our students don't even know what these rights are?

I've never polled these people, but people go into the military for 2 reasons. 1) They can't do anything else, and one fateful decision can give them up to 20 years of something to do. 2) They want to defend "the greatest country on Earth" to keep it that way. If you actually look at the behaviors of many of the military (enlisted, not officers) they are pretty immature and clueless people. Look at the silly businesses that cater to military people around bases for an example.

Hey conservatives! Maybe if instead of worrying about absitence only education and attacking Darwinism you spent your efforts in communicating why and how we are a free society, and why that is of tantamount importance, we could all get along here, hm?

1st. Freedom is completely a myth. Now we did initially have rights given to us in retaliation of the ways we were treated in other countries. But we've forgotten about that. That was a long time ago. The government is all about control. Why is it in my state (Virginia) that I am not allowed to have penis in vagina sex when I am legally bound in some kind of contract with a woman? What kind of freedom is that? Does the Patriot act ring a bell?

One thing to take note, is that we are a nation in crisis and confusion. The past 2 elections can demonstrate this, and the bozo in office should be sufficient to illustrate this confusion. But, even if these students are not good students, Bush has hope for them:

"To those of you who received honours, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the C students, I say you, too, can be president of the United States."

-- George W. Bush, speaking at Yale University's 300th commencement ceremony

In times of crisis we look towards silly comforts like bubblegum pop stars and donuts and we strive for some sense of control and sense to our lives. Since 9/11/01, bible sales are on the rise and so are government controls and the popular opinion that the government should have these controls.

In summary, most Americans are ignorant and proud of it.

Re:Even more scary..

[Procrastin8er]

In case you haven't noticed the vast majority of educators are liberal.

The liberal PC crowd are to blame for this!!!

Re:Even more scary..

[Daedalus-Ubergeek]

Those dirty conservatives, always attacking the Bill Of Rights. After all, it protects parades that promote crossdressing, gay sex and beastiality, but not guns... oh wait...

Re:Even more scary..

[FJ]

Actually, aside from the flag burning & Internet regulation examples, the article is quoting more of the opinions of students & teachers rather than the knowledge they have of the first amendment. Even the article you quoted is their opinion, not their understanding.

While I don't like their opinions they are just as free to have them as you or I. I'm also not surprised that a group of people who are not permitted to have all of the first amendment freedoms don't see the big deal about having them. I'd be interested in seeing how this same survey does with college age people who are not so restricted in their freedoms. I'd guess it would be different.

As for conservative vs. liberal opinions, I've seen both restrict what their kids can do. I think it is based more on parental fear rather than political opinion. For most parents, their kids freedoms are secondary to their kids safety. The easiest way (although not always the best way) to ensure their safety is to restrict their freedom.

Re:Even more scary..

[servognome]

One thing to take note, is that we are a nation in crisis and confusion
We have been for over 200 years, people are mostly uneducated, uniformed, and uninterested, this is nothing new.

Re:Even more scary..

[Quinn]

Amen. That was my first thought when I read the headline. Reference the humor article a few months ago with kids stating that a swastika "wouldn't be allowed" in a retro video game being reviewed.

It's (over-)sensitivity that's being bred into children, not fascism, but they both lead to restricting our freedom of expression.

Re:Even more scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

What scares me more is people like you believe this shit.

Re:Even more scary..

[PMuse]

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees.

What do you want to bet that this same crowd thinks the 2nd amendment doesn't go far enough?

"Yikes!" indeed.

Re:Even more scary..

[cpeterso]

uh, most of those schools and their curricula are controlled by authoritarian leftist/socialist teachers. Sure, the religious right harp about gays and abortions, but the authoritarian leftist/socialist teachers are the ones enforcing school bans on Confederate flags, pictures of guns, and speech codes. And they control our children's education. Ironically, these authoritarian leftist/socialist teachers are being used by the authoritarian conservatives (religious or not) to keep our children fat, stupid, and anti-freedom.

Re:Even more scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, that was a great argument, so compelling, let me rush right out and drink your Kool-Aid now

Re:Even more scary..

[PMuse]

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees.

Can't even recognize the 1st Amendment when they hear it, but the little suckers have got the Miranda warning down pat.

Re:Even more scary..

[Just Some Guy]

Cuz I'll be honest with you, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with James "Spongebob Is Gay" Dobson if it means we get the message out loud and clear about the Bill of RIghts.

I'm a hard-right conservative who took an oath of military service to defend and protect my constitution. While I'm not one who believes that you're "less of a citizen" if you haven't served, I'm on the record as stepping up to offer my life to protect your rights and mine. What exactly have you done besides bitching on Slashdot?

If the answer isn't more than "why, I joined the ACLU!", then you better get off your butt and do something before you complain about others' apathy.

Re:Even more scary..

[Ironsides]

The government is all about control. Why is it in my state (Virginia) that I am not allowed to have penis in vagina sex when I am legally bound in some kind of contract with a woman? What kind of freedom is that? Does the Patriot act ring a bell?

First off, I think you mean UNLESS you have a contract with a woman. That law was recently overturned. Also, I do not see how the Patriot act has anything to do with it.

Re:Even more scary..

[Ironsides]

Those dirty conservatives, always attacking the Bill Of Rights. After all, it protects parades that promote crossdressing, gay sex and beastiality, but not guns... oh wait...

Tell me that last time you saw/heard of a Democrat at the national level standing up for Gun Ownership-Rights over Gun Control. Please. I can not remember one ever doing so.

Re:Even more scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

Howard Dean.

Re:Even more scary..

[Coulson]

I participate in open and honest debate about our democracy, and the rights & liberties afforded therein.

Also, I vote.

However, I also salute your service, since you probably do both of those as well! So thank you.

Re:Even more scary..

[pthisis]

Just off the top of my head...

Howard Dean was endorsed many times by the NRA when running for various offices, and often spoke against additional federal gun control measures. He was definitely "at the national level" (and may be the next DNC chairman).

Zell Miller, too.

Re:Even more scary..

[goodhell]

Ok, I'll bite.

The first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Conservatives aren't into "abstinence only", we know that providing abstinence only sex education is not going to stop problems, but it may enhance them. The funny thing is abstinence is the only method to 100% guarantee that you don't get STDs, or get pregnant, etc from sex. The problem is that too many schools have scoffed at abstinence, saying that won't work, all kids are having sex. Funny thing, now that it is being taught in school teen-sex is on the decline, which means less teen pregnancy, which means fewer people who will go onto welfare for that. Studies have shown that a couple who have a child in their teens will generally be poor for all of their lives. Abstinence teaches self control, which those other methods do not.

Darwinism is a theory. Science is meant to be objective is it not? Should we look at all relevant theories on a subject or should we just scoff at those that don't fit our agenda? Intelligent design is another theory. The critics bash it because it takes into account that there might be a God and that things have happened due to design and not just accident.

This gets more at the heart of secularism, which IMO is an extremely repressive religion in and of itself. Secularism teaches that there should be no religion taught anywhere. There should be no reference to God in the public life. Honestly, it takes more faith to believe that there is no God, than to believe that there is a God. You have to believe, when you get down to it, that something comes from nothing - a contradiction to the known laws of physics. So you have the secularists who are trying to instill their religion (Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.) This gets back to Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So they are endorsing one religion and repressing another. This is a very serious breach of the first amendment. And all this comes before the "freedom of speech" section. You are right. People don't know the First Amendment.

We conservatives have a very strong love for the constitution and the bill of rights. And we see how you are so hypocritical about defending the first amendment. And we see how you liberals want to take away our freedoms.

Re:Even more scary..

[Just Some Guy]

I participate in open and honest debate about our democracy, and the rights & liberties afforded therein.

Directly working to raise the awareness of others is a worthy pursuit.

Also, I vote.

Thank you for actively participating! That's more than a lot of people can be bothered with.

Re:Even more scary..

[MBCook]

Conservatives are the problem. Right.

I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the liberals who won't even let teachers SHOW kids the Declaration of Independance and other documents because it references God.

How do you expect a kid to learn about history if you censor it so they can't even SEE WHAT THEY ARE LEARNING ABOUT because some little group that accounts for 0.0002% of the population is "unconfortable" with it?

Re:Even more scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatism isn't an economic theory. It is an economic and social theory aimed at preserving the status quo. Capitalism is an economic theory, socialism is an economic theory, conservatism isn't. Conservatism has traditionally promoted the free market and social control (i.e. Victorian values). The Republicans aren't the greatest free market advocates (just look at their farm subsidies), but they are extremely socially conservative. In fact, many people call them neo-conservative, because they go beyond preserving the status quo, and want to promote a utopian society based upon some idealised version of the past.

Re:Even more scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a hard-right conservative who took an oath of military service to defend and protect my constitution. While I'm not one who believes that you're "less of a citizen" if you haven't served, I'm on the record as stepping up to offer my life to protect your rights and mine.

Er, since when did the military have anything to do with protecting the citizens' rights? These rights concern things the GOVERNMENT is explicitly prohibited to take away from us; the military is a branch of the government, not an organisation in opposition to it! If the government ever does try to take away our rights, it will USE the military, and the people who will be protecting our rights will be those who OPPOSE the military at that point!

Let's, for the sake of argument, agree that the US military has been a powerful force for good in the world this last century. Even so, it has never, not on one single occasion, acted to protect the rights of more than a handful of US citizens. It has acted to protect the rights of Europeans, of Asians, and most recently it has acted to try to bring the rights and freedoms we enjoy to Iraqis. That's fine and laudible; if you have been involved in any of those operations, the world owes you much gratitude, and if you weren't, then you should be thanked for your willingness to be. But don't misinterpret your actions. You haven't done squat to protect the rights of US citizens.

Re:Even more scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwinism is a theory. Science is meant to be objective is it not? Should we look at all relevant theories on a subject or should we just scoff at those that don't fit our agenda? Intelligent design is another theory.

And evolution and intelligent design are not opposed to one another. The theory of evolution states that humans evolved from single-celled creatures by a process of mutation and natural selection. There is ample evidence for this. Evolution does not attempt to explain why this happened or why the particular mutations took place when they did - because science cannot address such questions!

The theory of intelligent design fills in these non-scientific gaps by postulating a Creator who applied mutations selectively in accordance with a plan. The theory of random evolution fills in the non-scientific gaps by postulating that it is possible for remarkable results to occur completely at random against incredibly heavy odds. Neither of these is a scientific theory, because neither can be tested or disproven: therefore neither should be taught in schools.

Schools should teach evolution, because the evidence in its favour is overwhelming. They should not teach creationism, because there is no scientific evidence for it that has not been discredited by a consensus of scientists from a wide variety of religious backgrounds. And they should not teach random evolution (a la Dawkins) or intelligent design, because both of those are religious matters rather than scientific.

Does that sound more reasonable to you? It sets up a truly secular system - secular as in truly disconnected from all religions, including atheism. Schools should teach facts and accepted scientific theories; the religious aspects should be left up to parents, who can choose to tell their kids about God, about random chance, or even about both, according to their own personal desire for their children's religious upbringing. That is true secularism - a system that is neither attached nor opposed to any particular religion. Do you not agree that that is an improvement to atheism, or any other religion, being taught in schools?

Re:Even more scary..

[alan_dershowitz]

Conservatives are strong proponents of civics classes and have been for years. But they get shot down by left wing reactionaries as patriotic propaganda, which is the EXACT reason so many schools have dropped the "controversial" programs. What the hell is patriotic propaganda anyway? America is SUPPOSED to be based on an idea, not an ethnic group or geographical location. I'd rather be the country that was founded on ideals than the country that was founded because everybody was the same skin color or whatever.

Re:Even more scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives are the problem. Right.

I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the liberals who won't even let teachers SHOW kids the Declaration of Independance and other documents because it references God.

Would you be so kind as to identify one of these "liberals" whom you claim are actually preventing the Declaration of Independence being studied in schools?

Oh, wait, you can't, because there aren't any.

Geeze, I bet you're still worried about the reds under your bed too, aren't you?

Re:Even more scary..

[DirePickle]

I'm not really that surprised by it. In my freshman English class in college, a couple of months post 9/11, about half of the class agreed that there should be a limit on freedom of speech. Which, again, isn't that surprising since George W. Bush himself said those same words.

Re:Even more scary..

[sugar and acid]

You forgot reason 3) To get something out of it, eg. a college education, or other training like joining the airforce to learn how to be a pilot.

Re:Even more scary..

[terrymr]

I guess the police & fbi are a bunch of lefist/socialists for helping schools to enforce these rules then ?

Re:Even more scary..

[Ironsides]

Dean, interesting. Just finished reading some on him. Unfortunately he still supports an Assualt Weapons ban (where an assault weapon is described as a rifle with a pistol grip). Read here for some more http://www.factcheck.org/article115.html As for Zen Miller? I'm not sure he's the best example given the last election. He's also not running again.

But I'm curious now, are there any others? Or can you point me to a site that lists some more?

Re:Even more scary..

[AK Marc]

He was complaining about a pro-gay organization that used familiar cartoon characters

No, he was complaining about a pro-tolerance organization that used the familiar characters in a multi-cultural video. He complained because any organization that preaches tolerance for all people is contrary to his beliefs. Tolerance it not to be tolerated by the Religious Wrong.

Re:Even more scary..

[Brandybuck]

Hey conservatives! Maybe if instead of worrying about absitence only education and attacking Darwinism you spent your efforts in communicating why and how we are a free society, and why that is of tantamount importance, we could all get along here, hm?

Hey liberals! Maybe if instead of worrying about teenagers knowing how to use a condom and teaching them to be properly sensitive to the subculture du jour, you spent your efforts in communicating why freedom of speech applies to political viewpoints you don't agree with, and why it is of tantamount importance and that if you stop shitting on every conservative you meet then we might actually get along here.

Re:Even more scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey conservatives!

That is the precise point at which it is clear just how far up your ass your head is stuck. Don't take that the wrong way. Labels like "conservative" & "liberal" mean very little. People would/might label me as "conservative" but the literal definition of "liberal" is far more accurate (even the non-literal definition). It is similar with party labels. Keep in mind that the term "conservative" is applied to Republicans, Christians, Muslims, Communists, Fascists. The term liberal tends to apply to the apparent anti-thesis of these though practically identical: Democrats, secular humanists, Jews, Socialists, Revolutionaries.

Re:Even more scary..

[Twanfox]

The problem about teaching children is that they start out as very trusting creatures. They believe anything you tell them until you tell them they shouldn't, or they learn why they shouldn't. If you tell your children time and again that they should keep their mouth shut, that they shouldn't speak their mind, that they have no right to talk, then then will eventually believe that, even if they are later taught differently.

To add to that, if this is their opinion, and the group that hold this opinion starts to exceed those that feel that this right is proper and just, it may be ammended out of the constitution, and you will wind up having no right to free speech. It is this reason why there is cause for concern.

Re:Even more scary..

[revscat]

Maybe if instead of worrying about teenagers knowing how to use a condom and teaching them to be properly sensitive to the subculture du jour, you spent your efforts in communicating why freedom of speech applies to political viewpoints you don't agree with, and why it is of tantamount importance and that if you stop shitting on every conservative you meet then we might actually get along here.

You know, I always hear about the ACLU defending Rush Limbaugh, the KKK, and other fascists whenever their freedoms are being curtailed. But I never hear about conservatives doing the same. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise you're just bringing up the same tired old strawmen.

And for the record, while I personally shit on conservatives, its purely for pleasure. The shitting stops when the legislature is in session, for I believe in the freedom of *all* mankind, not just my ideological brethren.

Re:Even more scary..

[Just Some Guy]

I'd have to disagree. The oath taken upon entrance to the US military is:

I,_________,do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The very first clause is to support the Constitution, and obedience to the government is the last duty mentioned. Think of it like Asimov's laws; you promise to obey all rules that don't require you to break previous ones.

You haven't done squat to protect the rights of US citizens.

I don't see it that way. When I was a Navy corpsman off the coast of Mogadishu, Somalia in 1994 (and participating in civilian medical programs in Kenya), we were protecting hundreds of thousands of people. You've heard the saying that none of us are free until all of us are free? I believe that.

Re:Even more scary..

[randallpowell]

Conservatives complaining about "liberal bias" again. Doesn't that get old? Why not take personal responsiblity and face the mistakes conservatives have done. Liberals can do it so why can't conservatives? I doubt it. COnservatives love to hide behind corporations when they do anything unethical or illegal.

Re:Even more scary..

[randallpowell]

took an oath of military service to defend and protect my constitution I, for one, thank you.

What exactly have you done besides bitching on Slashdot? Not much. I vote, email/write my Congressmen and Senators for what little good it does, I visited the local Democratic HQ for info on Kerry (he sucked), and may run for represenative in Congress so I can voice the view that offshoring doesn't help most people and all religions need equal treatment and respect (I'm a Buddhist). I'ma slacker.

Re:Even more scary..

[randallpowell]

Darwinism is a theory. Science is meant to be objective is it not? Should we look at all relevant theories on a subject or should we just scoff at those that don't fit our agenda? Intelligent design is another theory

ID isn't a theory as in it doesn't have a chance in being proven wrong. It's merely religious/philosophical concept. God may or may not exist but it can't be proven with external, non-personal data, so either way so the basic idea of ID is invalid. Evolution can be proven wrong but the evidence points to it. The methods of evolution are better understood but like everything in science, there is anyways uncertainty. Science based on faith and not on external evidence is bunk.

Secularism teaches that there should be no religion taught anywhere. There should be no reference to God in the public life. Honestly, it takes more faith to believe that there is no God, than to believe that there is a God.

Actually, securlarists tend to think that religion should be personal and all religious faiths are equal. What you are pointing out is the mythical persecution fundamentalists like to yell. Despite the fact they can pray, read the Bible, attend church, and even get federal hand-outs for charity work. That isn't persecution. If by persecution you mean people disagree with you, join the club. America is buildt on disagreements.

Re:Even more scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, the words "liberal" and "personal responsibility" cannot be used in the same sentence.

Bzzzzztttt....Thanks for playing.

Re:Even more scary..

[MBCook]

This is getting quite OT, but I heard about a school district that did this about a month ago. A teacher wasn't allowed to use the declaration as supplemental material because it contained "god". He did it anyway and was fired (IIRC).

I believe I heard it on Paul Harvey, although it may have been Sean Hannity. I'm not saying it's every school in the country (or even half), but it does happen, and I won't be suprised if it becomes more and more common.

Re:Even more scary..

[Brandybuck]

You know, I always hear about the ACLU defending Rush Limbaugh, the KKK, and other fascists whenever their freedoms are being curtailed.

I am quite insulted that you lump the KKK and fascists in with conservatives. Just because they are not liberal does not make them conservative! Defending the KKK in Skokie is wholly unrelated to defending conservatives. If you cannot tell the difference, then we have nothing to talk about.

Re:Even more scary..

[daft_one]

I'd think, as a Buddhist, you'd support outsourcing... "Give up this attachment to these worldly careers"... etc

Re:Even more scary..

[randallpowell]

Giving up attachment to worldly careers means not to base my identity on my job.

Re:Even more scary..

[randallpowell]

Neither can "moral values" and Republician.

Re:Even more scary..

[Shajenko42]

I think he's referring to prostitution.

Re:Even more scary..

[revscat]

If you cannot tell the difference, then we have nothing to talk about.

We have noting to talk about because like almost all conservatives you jump at the first available opportunity to bury your head in the sand whenever nasty-nasty cognitive dissonance rears its ugly head. In other words: you're too big of a chickenshit to face opposition.

Re:Even more scary..

[Jason Ford]

Have you ever heard of politicalcompass.org? They map ideologies along a pair of axes: the x-axis represents the economic scale, and the y-axis represents the social scale. For instance, as a libertarian communist, I fall into the bottom-left quadrant. An authoritarian neo-liberalist would fall into the upper-right quadrant.

I genuinely wonder which quadrant your typical conservative would fall into, and which quadrant your typical KKK member would fall into. I don't mean to suggest that I believe they would fall into the same quadrant. I just think it would be interesting to see where they fall. I think politicalcompass, even with its faults, is very useful in helping to define and categorize political and economic ideologies. It's certainly more sophisticated than liberal and not-liberal, or conservative and not-conservative, the limitations of which you rightly note.

Re:Even more scary..

[Sanction]

Would this be the guy that was circulating pamphlets to his students using a number of fictional quotes supposedly by the founding fathers pushing Christianity, such as quotes from George Washington's "prayer journal" that never existed? This was no simple mention of god, but an active act of pushing his personal faith using materials from an outside organization actively spreading completely fabricated falsehoods about the views of the founders.

Re:Even more scary..

[SirTreveyan]

From the CNN article:

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

People die to defend these rights, and some of our students don't even know what these rights are?

Hey conservatives! Maybe if instead of worrying about absitence only education and attacking Darwinism you spent your efforts in communicating why and how we are a free society, and why that is of tantamount importance

How is it the fault of conservatives that todays kids are not being taught the importance of a free society? Especially when you consider that in the US teachers MUST belong to the National Education Association (i.e. the national teachers union ) which definately has a well documented tilt toward the so called Democratic Party.

It would seem to me therefore that liberals are in charge of ensuring that todays kids learn "why and how we are a free society, and why that is of tantamount importance." It would also seem to me they are falling down on the job.

Personally, I believe that the sad state of the education system in the United States IS the result of the NEA close ties to the liberal agenda of the Democratic Party. Simply put, if children were taught to love and honor the free society in which we live, they would be able to see that the liberal agenda espoused by the Democratic Party goes against the very principles of a free society. For example, a truely free society does not resort to government siezure of property and and assets owned by an individual to give to another just because "they are less fortunate" or would result in higher tax revenues for the government in question. If you think I am wrong just look at all the social programs and government support items in the Federal budget. How many times have you heard a politician, especially one of the Democratic Party, speak of how we must help the less fortunate, or we must "think about the children" some measure is supposed to help? How many times have you wondered why the electorate in Massachusetts keeps that liberal Ted Kennedy in office, even though every time he opens his mouth he shows that he is out of touch with reality? The US education system is failing, not because our kids can not learn, but because it is in the best interest of the liberal agenda.

Re:Even more scary..

[revscat]

Personally, I believe that the sad state of the education system in the United States IS the result of the NEA close ties to the liberal agenda of the Democratic Party. Simply put, if children were taught to love and honor the free society in which we live, they would be able to see that the liberal agenda espoused by the Democratic Party goes against the very principles of a free society.

Of course you do, because you've swallowed the moronic bullshit spewed by the propagandists day in and day out. Here's the deal, though: by and large Democrats are more supportive of individual liberties. Oh I KNOW what you believe, what you've swallowed.

How many times have you heard a politician, especially one of the Democratic Party, speak of how we must help the less fortunate, or we must "think about the children" some measure is supposed to help?

Not very often at all, actually. In fact, I don't know if I've *ever* heard someone say that. What I *have* heard is conservatives bitch incessantly -- and oh how I do mean "incessantly"-- about what amounts to no more than a strawman, an Emmanuel Goldstein for the 21st century.

News flash, chucky: the emperor has no clothes. The enemy you think exists doesn't. You are being lied to.

The US education system is failing, not because our kids can not learn, but because it is in the best interest of the liberal agenda.

Or maybe, just maybe it's because kids have parents who don't raise them right. Maybe, just maybe we should point the cold finger of blame upon those who have the most influence in their upbringing, those who tell their kids, implicitly or explicitly, that some people don't deserve equal freedoms. Who bring them up believing that all their blame and hate can be directed at them thar nefarious and scary "liberals", instead of bringing them up to believe in equality for all, why liberty is an awesome thing, that justice should be blind, and that democray means that the people can and do have the ultimate voice in government.

Don't worry, though. All cognitive dissonance can be quieted just by tuning your radio to your local government propagandist. You can forget everything you read here and go about believing in your Orwellian reality.

The first rule of conservativism is you do not question conservativism.

Re:Even more scary..

[Brandybuck]

When you lump conservatives in with racists and fascists, we have nothing to talk about, because there is no common ground upon which to stand and converse.

Re:Even more scary..

[pthisis]

Unfortunately he still supports an Assualt Weapons ban (where an assault weapon is described as a rifle with a pistol grip)

He did lobby to have a number of weapons removed from the banned list (including a number of shotguns).

But I'm curious now, are there any others?

Yes. Try googling for "pro-gun democrats" or similar. Many governors and congressmen from rural states fit the category.

It's not an issue I follow much, but I remember Volkmer (from MO) and Geren (TX) were very much pro-gun. So was Harry Reid (NV).

Re:Even more scary..

[Brandybuck]

Actually I am a libertarian, only a few nanometers off the upper apex. But I tend to have a lot of sympathy with conservatives because they at least understand the nature of freedom, even if they frequently compromise it. To liberals (by which I mean the US style progressives) freedom is merely a government created privilege to be doled out as a tool for social change.

Conservatives are not libertarian, but their rhetoric often is. Just because they frequently compromise with liberty doesn't mean they don't want it.

Re:Even more scary..

[Jason Ford]

I am a "liberal", US-style progressive. However, I believe the reformist approach will only get one so far. I'm also a libertarian communist (read: anarchist.) As an anarchist, I do not believe that freedom is a government created privilege. I wonder how my beliefs fit into your worldview. I am insulted that you would make such a broad generalization that suggests that I do not understand freedom.

I find it is often easier to hold my beliefs when I demonize or ridicule those who disagree with me. I fight this tendency because I find it obstructs the path to the truth.

As I noted before, I don't find the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' very useful. What is your basic definition of these terms? It is only when these terms are clearly defined that I can engage in conversation about freedom and liberty with regards to political bent.

For instance, my definitions of liberalism and conservatism hinge on the ideas of revolutionaries and reactionaries. That is, liberals would like to see things change (improve), and conservatives would like to see things stay the same (and not devolve.) It's very crude, but, as I mentioned, I believe these are limitations of the terms.

I do believe that you are very astute in your observation that conservatives frequently compromise with liberty. You go on to suggest that this does not imply that conservatives don't want liberty. Well, what does it suggest then?

It has been said that when one says that one agrees with something in principle, it means that he or she does not agree with it in practice. Are you arguing that the converse is true: that is, if one does not agree with something in practice, that one agrees with something in principle?

The bottom line, I suppose, is whether conservative rhetoric is libertarian in nature. What do conservatives think about my behavior in my bedroom with my wife? What if it was with another man? What if we consumed illicit drugs beforehand? Is conservative rhetoric only conservative with respect to business?

Re:Even more scary..

[daft_one]

You know, I just may have been joking above... My nick is "daft_one" after all ;-) Maybe I need to add an ASCII clown to posts which are intended to be humourous... Hmmm.

Re:Even more scary..

[SirTreveyan]

Your whole response just shows how misguided you are. Lots put downs but no substance. Not even recognition of what goes on in the world around them.

Or maybe, just maybe it's because kids have parents who don't raise them right. Maybe, just maybe we should point the cold finger of blame upon those who have the most influence in their upbringing, those who tell their kids, implicitly or explicitly, that some people don't deserve equal freedoms.

It is obvious that you do not have kids, or you are one of those who are not raising them right. I know from experience that the liberal controlled public school system is doing their best to indoctrinate children into their (liberal) way of thinking. For example, gun control is high on the liberal agenda. Today liberally controlled government schools are teaching our children that the Second amendment does not appply to individuals. They are being taught that the right to bear arms belongs to the government. They are being taught only government should possess weapons. That intrepretation goes against the flow of the entire Bill of Rights, since all other admendments in the Bill of Right concerns rights of citizens which the government can not usurp. Our forefathers recognized the peoples right to over throw a tyrannical government, and wanted to ensure that the government they were putting into place could be overthrown should the need arise. Tyranny flourishes with an unarmed population.

Furthermore citizens property rights are being threatened by seizure laws pushed through by Congress sessions controlled liberals. This has resulted in a 21st century USofA that posesses conditions existing in England before the Magna Carta, when rulers almost automatically seized all the property of any person convicted of a felony. Such seizures spurred English barons to force King John to limit his powers in 1215. Except in the US today, one does not need to be convicted, one does not even need to be charged. All you need is to cross paths with a police officer having a bad day.

The enemy you think exists doesn't. You are being lied to.

Actually the enemy I see does exist. The enemy I see is the out of control government. This problem was caused by both liberals and conservatives. Government at all levels must be reduced, and severely. The forceful seizing of assets, also known as the Federal Income Tax needs desparately to be abolished. As it stands now the average US citizen has no idea how much he/she paying in taxes. You ask someone how much they get paid, and they will tell you how much them net after taxes, not what they gross before taxes are taken out. Now that tax season is upon us, if you ask someone how much they paid in taxes, you will probably be told what they owed or they got a refund, but I doubt they will know how much they paid in total. Taxing me for national defense is one thing, taxing me to subsudize some politician's constituants is another. Taxing me to support scientific research is one thing, taxing me so an "artist" can frame a US flag and splatter it with excrement is another. I would much rather keep the money that the governement siezes in the form of taxes, after all I did earn that money by the sweat of my brow and the labor of my back. After all, who knows better how to spend money I earned than myself? I am not being greedy, I am just saying the government does not know what is best for me and my family.

By the way, I am not conservative, I am libertarian. Government is meant to serve the people, not the other way around. Both liberals and conservatives have forgotten this important fact. I find it pissingly funny that you assumed I was conservative from a few words in reply. Maybe you like to take a little test. The results might surprise you. Then again if you believe that government is the answer to all of life's problems, maybe not.

Re:Even more scary..

[revscat]

By the way, I am not conservative, I am libertarian. Government is meant to serve the people, not the other way around.

Who do you think's in charge, babycakes? You think this adminitration's fiscal policy serves any other purpose than to drown the federal government?

Feh, you're a libertarian, hence a cultist. I, too, was once a libertarian. Then I woke up and realized I was being a complete evangelical asshole and was quite mistaken about a lot of things. Hopefully one day you'll have a similar awakening. In the mean time, go memorize the Preamble. It'll do wonders.

Maybe you like to take a little test.

Man, you're a walking cliche, aren't you? "Here, graph your political beliefs on this simplistic two-dimensional axis!" My beliefs don't graph to a two-dimensional plane, k? They're n-dimensional, and are in no way bound by fundamentalist dogma, whether Christian, libertarian, or "other".

Then again if you believe that government is the answer to all of life's problems, maybe not.

Yes, moo, I believe government should take over every part of the world, moo. All government is good, more is better, moo.

What a stupid fucking thing to believe. Do you REALLY think there are people out there who think that way? Really? Or are you just deluded?

Re:Even more scary..

[SirTreveyan]

You are the one that is deluded. Your rants against any type of thought that is different than yours tell how small your mind really is. According to you, anyone who believes differently than you is a fool. How pathetic you are. I pity you. Nuf said.

America is heading into a dark time...

[hsmith]

Education is falling through the floor, everywhere. More proof the education system is broken and needs massive intervention. It isn't working, standardized tests do nothing but dumb down curriculum. The education system is more based on making kids feel good about what they are doing, when it needs to teach them what they need to get by in life and do well. I feel cheated out of what I could have learned in school, we need to fix our system before it is to late.

Regarding flag burning

[slavemowgli]

The funny thing about flag burning and all those attempts to make it illegal (or the idea that it already is) is that when you ask a conservative who actually knows about these things, you'll find out that burning a flag is actually the only proper way to get rid of one when you have to - for example, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy. For some reason, those pushing for a law that would make burning flags illegal never seem to know about that.

Not that I myself care about what happens to a flag in the slightest, of course - if you're a soldier and in a fight, you probably have better things to do than worry about than a piece of cloth that probably was produced in a sweatshop in communist China, anyway.

It's funny how these neocons aren't actually conservative in the actual sense of the word, though.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[pikine]

Some towns have ordinances that ban public burning of anything at all. Burning in the public is a safety hazard. It also produces unpleasant fumes that are an environmental hazard. If smoking in the public is to be banned for the polution it causes, certainly flags shouldn't be an exception. It is especially important that flags made with nylon (which are more durable in extreme weather conditions) are not to be burned, since burning nylon produces dioxin.

I'm all for freedom of speech expressed in the form of flag shredding, though.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[plsander]

Burning the flag is the preferred method of disposing of a US flag that is beyond repair. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, VFWs, American Legions, etc will often hold flag retirements just for this purpose.

Very few of us will have the opportunity to keep the US flag out of the hands of an enemy, but many of us have flags that have flown and are in tatters.

If we are going to make burning the flag illegal, let's give the whole flag code teeth... No more car dealerships with a zillion flags, no more Kid Rock with a flag poncho, no more flag imprinted napkins...

Only half tongue in cheek.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning a flag is the proper way to dispose of an old flag no longer worthy of flying as well. Take it to your local American Legion headquarters and they will burn it in a ceremony. Usually done once a month or so.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[slavemowgli]

That's true, of course, but the difference between outlawing public burning of flags and outlawing public burning of *anything* is exactly that doing the former does not have any actual political connotations. It's just like with, say, the owner of a club deciding that no further guests will be admitted (for safety reasons, since the club's full) as opposed to the club owner deciding that, for example, no black people will be admitted. And of course, if you *do* outlaw flag burning specifically, then the question arises just which flags you can and cannot burn, too. Can I burn a flag of another country? A flag of a state (as opposed to that of the usa as such)? An earlier version of the flag with less stars? The flag the south used during the civil war? A variant of the flag that has less stripes, different colours, a different aspect ratio or some other distinguishing characteristics that makes it distinct from the flag of the usa? Thinking about it, here's another thought: if flag burning is illegal, then shouldn't it also be illegal to delete a picture of the flag on your computer? It's just the same really when you think about it: neither the piece of cloth nor the file is *the* flag as such; rather, they're just representations of it in a particular medium. Might be food for thought to give your local neocon relatives/friends/coworkers/... when you discuss the topic with them next time. :)

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Obfuscant]

...you'll find out that burning a flag is actually the only proper way to get rid of one when you have to ...

I think the distinction between "old, worn out flag being burned in a quiet, private ceremony" and "brand new flag being burned during a protest march, with the unburned parts being trampled on, as a means of expressing 'free speech'" is not too hard to make. Not to say that either should be illegal, just that bringing up the proper way to discard of a worn out flag as proof that "flag burning", in the normal context, should be legal, is a red-herring.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[slavemowgli]

Oh, yes, there is a difference, of course. It's just that when you realize that burning a flag in different contexts means different things, you also realize that it's not actually the act as such that is tried to be made illegal, but rather the expression of an opinion.

And that makes it easier to see what the real motives behind legislation like that are - it's an argument supposed to make people think and realize that the FUD spread is just that. FUD.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice selective quoting, there. Too bad your response has absolutely nothing to do with what your responding to, and is itself, a red-herring.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[jimmyfergus]

you probably have better things to do than worry about than a piece of cloth

But you've pledged allegiance to it! You must protect it.

I'm only half joking. As a non-US citizen in the USA, I have a real problem with the idea of citizenship requiring me to make a solemn pledge of allegiance to a piece of cloth. I couldn't take any pledge of allegiance lightly, and yet this one is absurd. I would consider pledging allegiance to the country (though not its government), but I'd rather not pledge allegiance to any grouping of humanity over the remainder, especially on the dubious basis of geography. I suspect I'll never take citizenship.

I have never made such a pledge, and AFAIK, the citizens of most other countries do not generally do so, in schools or anywhere else.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[GigsVT]

I think the thing is, everyone understands that. I doubt there are many that don't get the true meaning of the issue. I live in rural virginia, and even the stupidest and most ardent supporters of legislation to ban flag burning understood it was about the statement the act portrayed, and not the action itself.

Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you, they are too stupid to understand the real issues.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Dumbush]

neo = new

just like neoliberal = libertarian, not having much to do with the US liberal either

Re:Regarding flag burning

[slavemowgli]

Point - that's something one shouldn't assume. But I don't believe *everyone* understands that - don't underestimate the number of genuinely stupid people there are.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[slavemowgli]

*nods* Even if you did, THE flag is not the same as A flag.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, the traditional way to get rid of a flag is to first cut the blue field and stars away from the stripes. This makes the flag no longer a flag, and is usually burned.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

"Neoliberal" != libertarian, and that's actually the first time I've heard that. Libertarians are fiscal uberconservatives.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

for example, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy.

Or when it's old and starting to fall apart because it's improper to display a worn/damaged flag (as in, if it starts to fade, has a tear, etc)

Re:Regarding flag burning

[bburton]

Correct me if I'm wrong people, but burning the flag IS illegal. I got this from the US CODE Main Site.

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 33--EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES

Sec. 700. Desecration of the flag of the United States;
penalties

(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles,
burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of
the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not
more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the
disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term ``flag of the United States''
means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any
substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an
intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory,
possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any
offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this
section.
(d)(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the
United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order
issued by a United States district court ruling upon the
constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the
question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket
and expedite to the greatest extent possible.

(Added Pub. L. 90-381, Sec. 1, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291; amended Pub.
L. 101-131, Secs. 2, 3, Oct. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 777.)

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal means fiscal conservative in most of the world, so "neoliberal" is the same as Libertarian. For some reason, the word "liberal" is used in the USA to mean what would be called "socialist" elsewhere.

The worldwide interpretation of "Liberalism" is the that the government should not control either the economy or the people. It is based on the theories of Hobbes and Locke. "Neoliberalism" is this idea taken to its extreme (i.e. Libertarianism). For some reason, the USA uses different terms, however.

From Wikipedia:

Liberalism:
The word "liberal" derives from the Latin "liber" ("free") and liberals of all stripes tend to view themselves as friends of freedom, particularly freedom from the shackles of tradition. The origins of liberalism in the Enlightenment era contrasted this philosophy to feudalism and mercantilism. Later, as more radical philosophies articulated themselves in the course of the French Revolution and through the nineteenth century, liberalism equally defined itself in contrast to socialism and communism.

Neoliberalism:
The term neoliberalism is used to describe a political-economic philosophy that had major implications for government policies beginning in the 1970s - and increasingly prominent since 1980 - that de-emphasizes or rejects positive government intervention in the economy, focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by encouraging free-market methods and less restricted operations of business and "development". Its supporters argue that the net gains for all under free trade and capitalism will outweigh the costs in all, or almost all, cases.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[twostar]

But under the First Amendment, if it is a matter of speech it is protected. No other law can take that right away.

So, burning the flag express an opinion is protected. Just burning the flag for the hell of it is not.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[jc42]

Burning the flag is the preferred method of disposing of a US flag that is beyond repair. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, VFWs, American Legions, etc will often hold flag retirements just for this purpose.

Indeed. Some years back, in the late 1970's, there was a fun court case in Chicago. A theatre group produced a play in which an American flag was burned as part of one scene. The actors involved were arrested.

When they got to court, their defense was simple: They produced the oficial rules for handling flags, and pointed out that flags are supposed to be destroyed by burning. Their flags had come from local organizations such as the VFW. They had sent these organizations the script, and asked for worn-out flags that they could use (and burn) in the play. It seems that all these organizations had discussed the request, and decided that this was in fact a proper (if unusual) way to dispose of the flags. The play itself wasn't "disrespectful"; it merely had fictional characters that were disrespectful of the flag.

I only read the first reports, including the fact that the judge thought it was all pretty silly and tossed out the case. There were, however, lots of offended "patriots", and there was some sort of appeal. I never read what happened in the appeals.

But it is fun to mention to people that burning is the officially-approved way to dispose of old flags, and watch their confusion. After all, would you want someone to just toss a flag in the trash?

Also, how do used-car dealers dispose of their old flags?

Re:Regarding flag burning

[alienmole]

You might want to read the very next clause in the Pledge of Allegiance, namely "...and to the Republic for which it stands". The flag is a symbol of the Republic, and pledging to the flag is pledging to a symbol. It's not intended to be interpreted in the literal way you're doing.

The pledge was written in 1892, and at that time, flags were incredibly important symbols of their countries. No-one of that time, whether in America or throughout Europe, would have thought "the flag" in that pledge was a reference to "a piece of cloth". Rather, it's a concrete, tangible symbol of something that's otherwise very abstract - something that the average person can picture in their mind, much more so than the abstract notion of "country". The flag can be present at ceremonies, whereas otherwise there would be no tangible symbol of the nation.

I'll quote from here just to provide a sense of what the flag is intended to symbolize:

So in bundling it all together we have a symbol, a symbol that for two hundred years has signified honor, valor, justice, responsibility, perseverance, hardiness and commonweal. That symbol has been the banner that millions of Americans have marched and sailed and flown with int the maws of death. They have been proud of that symbol and in turn it has slowly and patiently nurtured their common good to the extent that America stands head and shoulders over most of the world.

You can ignore the jingoism at the end. ;) I'm not arguing for blind patriotism, but it's a little silly to object to that pledge on the grounds that you haven't bothered to try to understand the rich history behind it, and what it's trying to convey.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[DaSyonic]

See http://www.usflag.org/us.code36.html#USFC. The supreme court struck down such nonsense in 1990

Re:Regarding flag burning

[sugar and acid]

Well if you used a flag to kindle a fire say because you couldn't find anything else, well that would be illegal. But if you us the flag as a symbol of the US (which is its intent), and you are so disgusted or angry at the US or its government that you want to express that by burning the flag, that is protected by the first amendment as free speach. And the constitution trumps any other law.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading this.
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 33--EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES

Sec. 700. Desecration of the flag of the United States;
penalties

(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles,
burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of
the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not
more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the
disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term ``flag of the United States''
means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any
substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an
intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory,
possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any
offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this
section.
(d)(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the
United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order
issued by a United States district court ruling upon the
constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the
question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket
and expedite to the greatest extent possible.

(Added Pub. L. 90-381, Sec. 1, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291; amended Pub.
L. 101-131, Secs. 2, 3, Oct. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 777.)
Guess I'll just have to hang my old flag on my car till it is nothing but red,white, and blue strips of rag and call it being patriotic.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[maaleron]

Hand them down to used flag dealers ??? Those guys really are the scum of the earth.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

Neoliberalism is just another name for Thatcherism, which (from an economic point of view) is close to Libertarianism.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[damiam]

I have a real problem with the idea of citizenship requiring me to make a solemn pledge of allegiance to a piece of cloth.

As a natural-born American citizen, I haven't said the pledge since I was old enough to understand it, and no one's ever forced me to. I think the whole idea is kind of creepy, but there are several court decisions stating that people can't be forced to say it, and I know many people who don't. It might look a bit suspicious if an applicant for citizenship refused to say it, but you could probably work it out. I don't know exactly how the naturalization process works, but if they make you say the pledge as part of a large group in the final ceremony, no one's gonna know or care if you just mouth your favorite Marx quotes (Karl or Groucho).

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure some have pleged alignment to the flag or allegiance to something/someone else that was also usually two syllables long.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[wannabgeek]

I am from India and for me, it seemed natural and just, that flag-burning and insulting any other national symbol should be a crime. Only on reading all these comments by others, am I beginning to understand a different concept - of America, which is so much based on individual freedom.

But I think there is a reason for us to be this way. We had struggled under an alien and racist regime and fought really hard to attain our independence. The flags, the national anthem etc were symbols that unified the crores of people and motivated them to fight against the much more physically powerful and abusive government. And the government forces always used to abuse the symbols that were considered dear. So it is only natural that those acts incite people and I think it followed naturally that all those acts were made a crime in the constitution.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[Anonymous Coward]

go back and review the pledge of allegiance - the pledge is a pledge of allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands.

there's nitpicking, and then there's your post...

Re:Regarding flag burning

[jimmyfergus]

Ok, first a disclaimer, I said I was "half joking". It was meant to be a good natured teasing. Turns out it read as a troll to some. I am sorry for that.

Anyway, a person would have to be spectacularly stupid not to work out that a flag is a symbol for a group and its ideals. But that is also my point. It is clear that in spite of protests to my post, the flag is venerated in and of itself in the USA. The national anthem is about it! And yes, I am aware that the national anthem has more and deeper meanings than "look at the pretty flag", but it does spend a lot of time venerating it.

If the pledge is supposed to mean what some say it means, then it really needs to be reworded, because its words are quite unambiguous and they involve loyalty to cloth among other things. If anything should be clear and unambiguous, it should be a solemn pledge.

Venerating the flag, and the country over others, are both considered virtues by many of the USA. Not all US truths are held to be self evident by the remainder of humanity. Decades into the space age, isn't it time that people saw themselves as citizens of the world and loyal to their ideals first, with loyalty to country further down the list? Many Americans seem to think they have given the idea and practice of liberty to the world and that the USA alone represents it. They are ignoramuses.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[thetroll123]

Burning in the public is a safety hazard

The public doesn't need burning in, it's ready to use right out of the box.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[alienmole]

Venerating the flag, and the country over others, are both considered virtues by many of the USA. Not all US truths are held to be self evident by the remainder of humanity. Decades into the space age, isn't it time that people saw themselves as citizens of the world and loyal to their ideals first, with loyalty to country further down the list?

Short answer: No, that's hopelessly idealistic, and I'll try to show why below.

Longer answer: Which world should Americans be citizens of? The one in which billions of people are controlled by theocracies, or other authoritarian types of government? Or perhaps you're thinking of some kind of idealized version of Europe - should the E.U. be considered representative of the world? Or perhaps the international agreements of the United Nations should represent the world you're thinking of?

But none of these things represent the beliefs of the majority of Americans, otherwise there'd be some more overt variety of Euro-style socialism in the U.S., for example, and the U.S. would be a more willing participant in the U.N., and many other differences besides.

In short, the "world" you're referring to is very ill-defined, and considering oneself a "citizen" of it is an utterly empty proposition.

That's a good thing from my perspective, though, because I can use it to point out, by contrast, how citizenship in a well-defined nation with core principles enshrined in law is a very valuable thing. A citizen who values the protections and freedoms that his nation gives him might even want a symbol of it, such as a flag.

It is clear that in spite of protests to my post, the flag is venerated in and of itself in the USA.

I agree. But you may as well complain about people venerating statues of the Virgin Mary. That's human nature, and it's so ubiquitous that some religions have admonitions against idol worship. If people are instructed by their god not to worship idols, and they still do, what does that tell you? Concrete symbols are important to many, perhaps most people - it gives them a focus for abstract concepts that otherwise would be more difficult for them to encompass.

At a certain level or intelligence or education, it becomes possible to replace brightly colored objects with apparently simple words, like "god" or "nation", but both words and objects in this case are simply abstractions, symbols which represent some concept which is not concrete - there's no object you can point to and say there, that's a nation, or that's a god.

The foundation of human intelligence is abstraction, the ability to use symbols to represent concepts and objects. Worrying about the fact that a flag is made of cloth is as meaningful as worrying about whether alphabetic characters are composed of ink or, in this communication, merely of a seemingly transitory arrangement of electrons. A flag represents a nation in the same way as the words "The United States of America" do. When people venerate the United States of America, are they venerating a string of characters, or the concept for which those characters stand? I'd better stop now, before we have to start getting into Frege's "Sense and Reference", which is actually quite relevant here.

Anyway, a person would have to be spectacularly stupid not to work out that a flag is a symbol for a group and its ideals

OK, but then why do you write that the pledge "needs to be reworded" because of involving "loyalty to cloth among other things"? I've attempted to explain the meaning of the pledge, but you're simply refusing to accept that, instead sticking to your literal interpretation related in part to a flag as a piece of cloth, as opposed to a symbol.

Ultimately, communication can only occur between people who want to communicate. If you refuse to understand the inte

Re:Regarding flag burning

[jimmyfergus]

You're quite right that I made unfocussed points very much tangential to the original issues, but hey, we're both at it! The whole rest of the pledge, and its meaning, are tangential to my original, trivial, point.

My "citizen of the world" wording wasn't, perhaps, the best way to express what I was talking about. I was advocating a rejection of nationalism altogether, rather than replacement of US nationalism with some more inclusive equivalent. The rampant nationalism in the USA is frankly scaring much of the world.

Anyway, we will have to just disagree about whether it's reasonable for a pledge to be loosely interpreted in a figurative manner. So yes, I am refusing to accept that your interpretation of the pledge is absolute, obvious, or definitive, just as you are refusing to accept my position that the meaning of a pledge should be literal. It doesn't go much deeper than that.

I don't know where to go with some of the other things you talked about. You do realise I wasn't suggesting that flags should not exist, for instance, or that they serve no useful purpose? But hey, tangents are shooting out everywhere in this sub-thread. I'll give up now.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[alienmole]

So yes, I am refusing to accept that your interpretation of the pledge is absolute, obvious, or definitive, just as you are refusing to accept my position that the meaning of a pledge should be literal. It doesn't go much deeper than that.

The interpretation of the pledge doesn't have to be "obvious". The fact that you can find literally thousands of texts which interpret the pledge in all more or less the same way indicate that its interpretation is not controversial. You can't refuse to accept that the pledge has an widely accepted interpretation. Given that, in essence, your critique boils down to "but it sucks". It's difficult to take that seriously, no matter how much you dress it up with distractions.

My "citizen of the world" wording wasn't, perhaps, the best way to express what I was talking about. I was advocating a rejection of nationalism altogether, rather than replacement of US nationalism with some more inclusive equivalent.

Feel free to re-read what I wrote as a critique of the concept of "rejection of nationalism altogether". "Nationalism" is just a special case of could be called "groupism", which I addressed in my post. Humans form groups and use those groups to compete with each other. The reason I called your position idealistic is that you're talking in simplistic terms about something which in reality, could never be that simple.

The rampant nationalism in the USA is frankly scaring much of the world.

For many in the U.S., that's completely intentional. Certainly, one of the central doctrines of Bush's foreign policy is a willingness to up the ante. The nationalism in this case is a reaction to external hostility. But we're getting off track again.

You do realise I wasn't suggesting that flags should not exist, for instance, or that they serve no useful purpose?

I'm not sure how you got to that question from what I wrote. I guess it was long and you didn't feel like paying attention, which is understandable. I explained why your focus on the flag as a physical object entirely missed the point, and how logically and philosophically, a flag is no better or worse a symbol for a nation than the name of the nation is.

But hey, tangents are shooting out everywhere in this sub-thread. I'll give up now.

For the record, all the points I raised were direct responses to things you wrote, and still apply after your clarifications. However, I seem to have misjudged your level of interest, and I fully understand if you want to give up.

Re:Regarding flag burning

[jimmyfergus]

However, I seem to have misjudged your level of interest, and I fully understand if you want to give up.

You're absolutely right, my level of interest in discussing anything with you is drained. You extrapolate strawman positions from everything I say and then deconstruct them, at tedious length with questionable logic. You accuse me of mindlessly refusing to accept your points, while doing exactly that to me. Yes, what you have written is very long and I haven't been bothered to address it properly. I have a job, a personal life, and everything I say will obviously lead to an explosion of largely irrelevant points from you. Perhaps you'd do well in politics.

I've tried to be somewhat conciliatory, which you have chosen to see as a sign of weakness. I've tried to be polite, and you've responded with insults. I should have known better than to tease any aspect of America, which will always flush out humorless bullys who'll react with self-righteous indignation as if challenged to a fight.

This discussion is utterly futile. Feel free to consider everything you have said extraordinarily astute, a refutation of everything I've said, and you have "won". I know you will. Tell you what, why don't I call you a Nazi. That has the benefit of having some validity (your blind self-righteous nationalism), plus by Godwin's law traditions you've won and the discussion is over! Whoo Hoo!

Re:Regarding flag burning

[rthille]

Not to mention, if burning a flag is illegal, does drawing a picture of a flag and burning that violate the law? What about computer generated images of people burning flags? Would you have to have a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen: "no actual flags were hurt in the production of this protest message."

Re:Regarding flag burning

[alienmole]

your blind self-righteous nationalism

Heh. I'm not even an American. However, that doesn't mean I can't understand where they're coming from. I'm just not so embedded in either a European or U.S. ideology that I can't see it from either perspective, and a few others besides.

If you had the patience to re-read my long post without your erroneous assumptions about where I'm coming from, you might realize that you're being overly defensive and have certainly misunderstood me.

I don't believe I insulted you, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I did strongly criticize some of your ideas, for example describing the "world citizen" thing as hopelessly idealistic and utterly empty, but those aren't insults - I backed those claims up with an argument which you haven't even attempted to address.

I don't want to "win" anything - if I've challenged you into thinking, that would be great. I thought you might offer some kind of defense of your ideas about rejecting nationalism, which might have been interesting. As it is, your lack of response on that point seems to confirm that there's nothing there. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised...

[baudilus]

The general and trivial knowledge of the average high school student is pathetic, at best. Why? Anyone who grew up in public school can tell you, anyone with that kind of knowledge (along with other factors)is considered a "nerd" or "geek" and quickly becomes a social outcast. And they all want to be popular and accepted, so they either feign ignorance or they actually are. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Hve you ever watched Street Smarts? I once saw a college kid who couldn't name the current president of the U.S.

Who can blame them?

[afabbro]

After all, it's not like it means what it says. "Congress shall make no law..." has been reinterpreted and watered-down so much that it takes years of graduate study to understand.

The first amendment, after all, doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law except for laws barring child pornography, the exposure of military secrets, and naughty words on the radio."

Not that I don't favor barring child porn, but you know, if you want to do that, you need to change the amendment...

Yeah, yeah, I know all about our English Common Law system and all that. I'm just saying, you can't blame people for not understanding the law...and frankly, the law is always a mushy, malleable pile of goo if the Supreme Court can change the meaning of pretty plain words.

Re:Who can blame them?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The first amendment, after all, doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law except for laws barring child pornography, the exposure of military secrets, and naughty words on the radio."

Not that I don't favor barring child porn, but you know, if you want to do that, you need to change the amendment...

Or make it illegal using STATE or LOCAL laws. Heck murder is almost always prosecuted under STATE law, not FEDERAL (with some exceptions, e.g. on military bases, civil rights, terrorism, naval waters, etc)

Most Federally illegal stuff is illegal under State law (e.g. child porn is a violation of NRS 200.700-200.760 inclusive, murder is a violation of NRS 200.010-200.260 inclusive) anyway, so repealing the Federal law wouldn't change anything other than how/where stuff is prosecuted. And states would be free to cooperate in the enforcement of each other's law, like they do with driver's license violations and related issues.

Re:Who can blame them?

[91degrees]

Surely the original intent was just to make it perfectly clear that criticism of the government, peaceful protests (e.g. marches), and freedom to practice ones own religion was permitted. Child pornography was unthinkable, the US didn't have a military, and the radio was yet to be invented.

I'm not sure about the radio issue, but exceptions for the other two seem to be a rare case of common sense triumphing over the letter of the law. Ideally there should have been an amendment but are you going to make it perfectly legal to publish all government secrets while the is ratified?

Re:Who can blame them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally there should have been an amendment but are you going to make it perfectly legal to publish all government secrets while the is ratified?

Yes. Our government was founded by people who were afraid of a powerful central government, and the tyranny that was the inevitable result of such a government. They built our government to "do no wrong" first. They knew that they would enter into power, and that power would be passed on to others. The first thing they did was build in a whole slew of safeguards and restrictions to that power. Any large government attracts those who want power. Usually that kind of person wants more power and more, and will take whatever they can. After a few hundred years of that, most of those safeguards have been bypassed, marginalized, or officially removed.

Why does our government need to keep secrets from us? Our government is supposed to be by us and for us. It should be transparent. Right now it is corrupt cesspool of liars, thieves, and swindlers. Bribery is everywhere. Nearly half of the population does not believe their vote is counted, and that the electoral process is rigged. 90% of people believe that if you have enough money, you can usually ignore the laws. It is rotten to the core.

Common sense is what the propaganda tells you. Since records have been kept every president elected has been the one that spent more money on PR. It may come as a surprise to you, but PR works. That is why all those companies spend so much money on it. Our government is just a huge corrupt festering pile of crap, that maintains the status quo because that is how they get paid. Tear away the veil, at very least the public can get a laugh at how sickeningly their tax dollars are spent.

Re:Who can blame them?

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

The original intent was to safeguard states' rights to make their own censorship laws. It was part of a general distrust of the new federal government.

That's why the amendment reads "Congress shall..." and not "No government shall..."

Later supreme court rulings have expanded its application to the latter, however, albeit allowing for some exceptions, such as obscenity laws.

Re:Who can blame them?

[91degrees]

Okayyy...

They knew that they would enter into power, and that power would be passed on to others. The first thing they did was build in a whole slew of safeguards and restrictions to that power.

Yes. That happened before the first amendment. They arrranged this by creating a fair electoral system. The first amendment was simply an amendment.

Why does our government need to keep secrets from us? Our government is supposed to be by us and for us. It should be transparent.

Off the top of my head, in the second world war, the allies put considerable resources into codebreaking. They put a lot of effort into making sure that nobody realised they were decoding German transmissions. If this secret was shared with the people then it would also have been shared with the germans. A totally free press would potentially have revealed this information. Freedom of speech can kill.

Why does our government need to keep secrets from us? Our government is supposed to be by us and for us. It should be transparent. Right now it is corrupt cesspool of liars, thieves, and swindlers. Bribery is everywhere. Nearly half of the population does not believe their vote is counted, and that the electoral process is rigged. 90% of people believe that if you have enough money, you can usually ignore the laws. It is rotten to the core.

No. If you uncover corruption you are free to talk about it. This is and always should be the case. This is not what I mean by govermnet secrets. I think most reasonable people would agree that this is the intended purpose of the 1st amendment.

Common sense is what the propaganda tells you. Since records have been kept every president elected has been the one that spent more money on PR. It may come as a surprise to you, but PR works. That is why all those companies spend so much money on it. Our government is just a huge corrupt festering pile of crap, that maintains the status quo because that is how they get paid. Tear away the veil, at very least the public can get a laugh at how sickeningly their tax dollars are spent.

Surely this is an argument against absolute freedom of speech. Most other countries have legal limits on the amount that can be spent on campaigning. This isn't possible in the US though because all such measures are ruled unconstitutional.

Re:Who can blame them?

[91degrees]

Well, yeah, probably. But I really didn't want to say anything too contentious about original intent. I felt it was reasonable to assume they weren't explicitely intending to include anything that hadn't yet been conceived.

Re:Who can blame them?

[Alsee]

Or make it illegal using STATE or LOCAL laws.

State and local laws are just as subject to constitutional restictions as federal laws. It would be absolutely unconstitutional for a state or local law to establish Scientology as the official and favored religion.

-

Re:Who can blame them?

[Money for Nothin']

Surely the original intent was just to make it perfectly clear that criticism of the government, peaceful protests (e.g. marches), and freedom to practice ones own religion was permitted. Child pornography was unthinkable, the US didn't have a military, and the radio was yet to be invented.

So how, exactly, in terms of informational content communication, is radio different from the newspaper (which they had at the time of America's founding)?

The newspapers, you must agree from a reading of the First Amendment, are allowed to print distasteful words like "fuck", "shit", "ass" and so forth. How is that any different from saying "fuck", "shit", and "ass" on the radio? Both are expressing the words, in whatever context we choose.

I see no difference.

As to child porn, that's possible. Society was considerably more Puritanical then than now, so if when child molestation happened in those days, it was quite-probably not discussed much publicly, if at all. They also did not have the means of mass-distribution of images, e.g. photographs, image file formats to contain images sent around the world over the Internet, etc.. But surely they could have envisioned scenarios in which people (probably anonymously) wrote about their experiences molesting children? And after all, there *are* people who get off on erotic literature; no doubt such twisted people exist who get off on pedophilic literature. Further, it's possible that people could have painted pictures to illustrate such acts.

Why then, didn't the Founding Fathers ban such literature depicting child molestation, whether in text or in paintings?

And as for the military... The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789. The U.S. military was also created in 1789. Which one was created first? It appears the Constitution, but clearly, if they came about during the same year, and especially after just having fought a war with England, then the world's most-powerful nation, then it stands to reason that creating a military certainly was on their minds to some degree.

Hence, if they wanted to make special provisions in the Constitution for the military, they could have done so. So where are those provisions?

Re:Who can blame them?

[AK Marc]

So how, exactly, in terms of informational content communication, is radio different from the newspaper (which they had at the time of America's founding)?

Because if I want a newspaper, I have to go out and get it, or pay someone to deliver it. Radio is beamed into my home against my will. To get beamed into my house against my will, it is beamed over goverment land, and crosses state lines, and all that.

Re:Who can blame them?

[Money for Nothin']

Because if I want a newspaper, I have to go out and get it, or pay someone to deliver it. Radio is beamed into my home against my will. To get beamed into my house against my will, it is beamed over goverment land, and crosses state lines, and all that.

So? You still have to go out and get a radio to intercept those radio waves. Without going out and getting a radio, your ability to intercept that information is as impossible as it is by not going out and getting a newspaper; both require action on your part in order to gain access to foul language.

I still fail to see the difference. Both are mediums over which foul language may be carried, so within the question regarding foul language, why should one be the scorn of regulatory nanny-state bureaucrats in the FCC, but newspapers and magazines are not?

Again, both require action on your part to get access. After your purchase, radios require a technological means plus your auditory senses and listening ability, whereas newspapers require only your vision and your literacy.

How is it that you can "turn off" the newspaper, but you cannot "turn off" the radio? Just because radio waves pass through your home does not mean you can decode them; doing so requires action on your part.

Re:Who can blame them?

[porcupine8]

But what about those poor souls who get radio reception via fillings, braces, and plates in their heads? We've got to protect them from unwanted obscenity.

Re:Who can blame them?

[AK Marc]

So? You still have to go out and get a radio to intercept those radio waves. Without going out and getting a radio, your ability to intercept that information is as impossible as it is by not going out and getting a newspaper; both require action on your part in order to gain access to foul language.

I'm saying that they are bombarding me with radiation. Do you understand that one bombards my home, against my will, with radiation 24 hours a day? The other doesn't do any more than put some dispensers on an occasional sidewalk and fill a few stands in stores (plus deliver if you pay them to). The government has decided that in exchange for letting them irradiate the country side, they will follow some specific guidelines. If you feel that it is reasonable to have rules for bombarding everyone with radiation, then we have no disagreement.

Re:Who can blame them?

[Money for Nothin']

You're dodging the original point to which I was responding -- that of censorship of certain foul words, a practice for which we have a double-standard: in newspapers, censorship is bad, but on the radio and TV, it's good. At least, that is the effect on society the FCC has.

I'm saying that they are bombarding me with radiation. Do you understand that one bombards my home, against my will, with radiation 24 hours a day?

Are radio waves (EM waves, really) harmful to the body? Evidence?

We get bombarded with all kinds of radiation on a daily basis. Radiation from the Sun, radium, radiation that is *still* in the atmosphere from above-ground nuclear explosions over the past half-century, and every single electrical device you own -- including the computer you're using to respond to me (look out for those nasty radiations from the CRT).

But the question is, "are these things dangerous? Do they promote cancerous growths?" Radiation from cellphones is thought to increase the chances of cancer, so it's certainly a possibility. But the realistic question is "how much am I affected? Is the trade-off for this vastly-improved technology worth the increased risk (if one exists at all) of cancer?"

And that depends on the risk.

In any case, unless you're concerned about other forms of radiation, your worries are rather irrational.

Again, by worrying about the effects of radio waves (while, ironically, sitting in front of a computer responding to me), you're ignoring my original point. The overall discussion here is that of freedom of speech and censorship and government approval of speech -- these are questions of content (words), not of medium (means of transmitting words)...

Re:Who can blame them?

[Money for Nothin']

You know, once in a great while, I've heard radio signals coming in on my computer speakers. Radio waves are EM transmissions, so if the speaker wires are getting enough EM current to make the speaker move, then I suppose it's possible.

But when I had braces, I never received radio signals, nor do I know of anybody who ever has. It seems like an urban legend to me...

Assuming that does happen though, then those people should be entitled to compensation to resolve the problem (if they think it's a problem) from the offending radio station.

Re:Who can blame them?

[AK Marc]

Are radio waves (EM waves, really) harmful to the body? Evidence?

I never said they were. But they most certainly are transmitting them in a manner intended to bombard my property. Are you saying I have no right to any say regarding someone hitting me with radiation? Some pilots and a guy with a green laser got into a disagreement over that just the other day...

Again, by worrying about the effects of radio waves (while, ironically, sitting in front of a computer responding to me),

Hmmm. About 5 years ago, you could have assumed that I was in front of a large radiator. However, with LCDs rising in popularity, if that was your guess or implication, that would be wrong...

these are questions of content (words), not of medium (means of transmitting words)

No, they are questions of both content and delivery. You have freedom of speech. I have freedom to not listen. If I put up a "no soliciting" sign on my door, you do not have the "freedom of speech" to tell me something. I've told you to go away, and it is my property. The method of transmitting the words (door to door delivery) changes your rights to speech, because my right of privacy trumps it. If you were to try something similar in public, you would be able to approach me and share your message. The place in which you attemtp your speech is important in your rights to deliver your message.

Since I can't hang a sign on my door that says, "no Howard Stern," then there are rules to make sure that the content is not overly objectionable. The courts have decided that it is not just the medium. Radio that someone subscribes to is not regulated for content at all. They agree to the terms and can not access it without the subscription. The same is true of subscription TV. Something that you could accidentally run across (radios are in nearly every home, as are TVs, as well as every place of work I've ever been in, and nearly every car - in fact, most cars can't be had without a radio, so no pretending that you have to go out of your way to run across an RF tuning device) that is blasted onto your property without your permission that you don't have the capability of preventing should be treated differently from something you seek, like a TV subscription, radio subscription, periodical subscription, or something you encounter in public when someone is exercising their free speech.

They have the freedom of speech. If they don't like the rules, they can speak without invading my private property with the message (which they are doing even if I don't have an RF receiver to hear it). Why do you think that someone invading my property with their message has more of a right to their content than my right to be secure in my home? Does it matter if I have "no trespassing" and "no soliciting" signs up and they want to bang on my door to deliver their message? What if they come in through an open window like the radio waves and spread their message? You said it isn't the medium that should matter...

Re:Who can blame them?

[91degrees]

So how, exactly, in terms of informational content communication, is radio different from the newspaper (which they had at the time of America's founding)?

One had been invented at the time. The other hadn't. That is pretty much my entire point. That the amendment was not intended to cover radio, and the effect it would have on the regulation of the spectrum. Presumably, the reason for special consideration for the radio is that radio spectrum is a finite resource. This should not be wasted on foul language.

Why then, didn't the Founding Fathers ban such literature depicting child molestation, whether in text or in paintings?

I don't know. Are you suggesting they may have considered it, and decided that this was something they wanted to encourage?

Hence, if they wanted to make special provisions in the Constitution for the military, they could have done so. So where are those provisions?

That's a very good point. It should have become apparent at least after a certain time that there would be military secrets that would need protection. There should have been an amendment to set up military intelligence.

Re:Who can blame them?

[Money for Nothin']

Presumably, the reason for special consideration for the radio is that radio spectrum is a finite resource. This should not be wasted on foul language.

I can see that as reasoning originally, although even then, it strikes me as very very weak reasoning. But then, all bandwidth is finite: there's only a certain amount of land on which we can sell newspapers, and there's only a certain amount of bandwidth through which radio waves may travel. Taken to logical extremes, the argument of finiteness of the resource is a failed one... (especially taken to merely reasonable extremes, i.e., we can slice up bandwidth more-carefully now, and we have an increased ability to share that bandwidth that we did when the FCC was formed. So in particular, from reasonable extremes, the restriction of foul language on the basis of finiteness is even weaker.)

I don't know. Are you suggesting they may have considered it, and decided that this was something they wanted to encourage?

I sincerely doubt the wanted to encourage it, and I doubt it crossed their mind (only because there's no way it could've been as prevalent as it is now). Even if it had, theirs was such a prudish society that it likely never would've been brought up.

That said, I could see many of the Founding Fathers taking the position that if such pictures are legally-available, it becomes easier to socially-demonize those who take part in their production and consumption and prosecute the sickos who engage in the *actual* act of child molestation. That is, it would be possible to regulate the consumption side via social pressure, rather than legal mandate, while prosecuting the production side from the perspective of individual liberty (i.e., the child's freedom to be left alone by sexual predators) -- even if the texts and images themselves are not illegal, the acts which they portray, *if* they involve real people, would be. (This view would additionally be backed, in spirit at least, by the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling which ruled as legal artificial (e.g. computer-generated) child porn, but not porn involving real, actual children.)

Still, that may well be an over-estimation of their consideration of the issue. The Founders may simply have feared the intrusion of government into even this part of peoples' lives (having quartered the British military in their own homes against their will, among other things) more than the effects of child porn on society...

It should have become apparent at least after a certain time that there would be military secrets that would need protection.

Given that Washington was the first President, and also given that he was the Commander-in-Chief in the American Revolution (that's how he became well-known enought to be nominated for President, even though he wasn't very keen on being President in the first place), wouldn't it seem clear to him, of all people, that protecting military secrets would be of great importance? If so, why didn't he do anything about it?

Perhaps it was that same fear of over-powerful government the other Founding Fathers had? i.e., the fear that the military would one day be too powerful for the citizenry to control (as has been the case for roughly 200 years), and hence, it was necessary to keep open for future generations the military's information so that their sad and messy history could be read by its light?

This begs the question: in present times, can we afford to open up our NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) weapons secrets to the nation? Open up the ongoing undercover operations of the CIA? In the case of the former, I would say no, because their magnitude of destruction is uncontrollably-great w.r.t. the individuals which may be harmed, and our ability to prevent their use on ourselves by attackers (e.g. terrorists) is quite inadequate. The latter, however, I'm remain unconvinced and open to persuasion either way. The CIA has a

Re:Who can blame them?

[Money for Nothin']

Are you saying I have no right to any say regarding someone hitting me with radiation?

It was a practical question. You're also bombarded by the sound waves of people speaking out of their mouths in public spaces (some of which can be quite loud and obnoxious!). Do you have the right to stop those sound waves? On your own property, yes, absolutely. On public property? No.

So you can certainly build a wall around your property to keep out the sound of those people talking. But you can't go out and tell them to stop talking.

Likewise, you can take steps to prevent radio waves from coming into your home -- line your home with tinfoil, if it's that much of a concern. But you can't go out and tell the radio broadcasters not to broadcast (although you may be able to reach some kind of agreement for them to change the way they broadcast).

At least, that's the ideal situation. Legal case history and usurpations of the Constitution via legislation have altered that reality somewhat...

However, with LCDs rising in popularity, if that was your guess or implication, that would be wrong...

That's true, LCDs don't radiate EM waves, unlike CRTs (which still emit less radiation over the course of a human lifetime than you would receive from a single X-ray, IIRC).

No, they are questions of both content and delivery. You have freedom of speech. I have freedom to not listen. If I put up a "no soliciting" sign on my door, you do not have the "freedom of speech" to tell me something. I've told you to go away, and it is my property. The method of transmitting the words (door to door delivery) changes your rights to speech, because my right of privacy trumps it.

Indeed. But I'm referring to the regulations within the FCC which prevent Howard Stern from using foul language on the radio. That is a question of the logical contents carried by the medium, not the medium itself.

Since I can't hang a sign on my door that says, "no Howard Stern," then there are rules to make sure that the content is not overly objectionable.

By hanging a sign on your door which says "no solicitors," you are taking voluntary action of your own accord to restrict people from selling on your doorstep. You have every right to do so, but the default case is that they may bring that message to your door.

The same is true of radio. The default is to allow those radio waves to pass through you and your home. In order to prevent that, you must - as with solicitors - take action on your own to stop them, be it encasing every room in a Faraday cage, embedding tinfoil behind the walls, or whatever; it's still action required on your part, not on the part of somebody else.

Radio that someone subscribes to is not regulated for content at all. They agree to the terms and can not access it without the subscription.

Explain how the purchase of a device is irrelevent in the means of accessing content.

In order to access non-subscribed radio waves, I need to buy a radio. In order to access subscription-based radio waves (over which digital transmissions are sent, e.g. from Sirius or XM), I must also purchase a radio. The only difference is that one requires an ongoing subscription fee, the other does not. But both have a barrier to access -- the purchase of the physical device required to receive those signals.

The same is true of subscription TV. Something that you could accidentally run across (radios are in nearly every home, as are TVs, as well as every place of work I've ever been in, and nearly every car - in fact, most cars can't be had without a radio, so no pretending that you have to go out of your way to run across an RF tuning device) that is blasted onto your property without your permission that you don't have the capability of preventing

You have the capability; the only question is whether you're willing to take the initiative to do so. ...should be treated

Re:Who can blame them?

[AK Marc]

In order to access non-subscribed radio waves, I need to buy a radio.

No, you don't. They are provided free (or at cost, but inseparable) with many purchases. I challenge you to buy a car without getting a radio. There are perhaps 5-10 of the 300+ models out there which you can opt to get the vehicle without a radio. Having to buy a radio is a straw man because there are almost no people left without a radio, so you would have to go out of your way to not run into a radio, not the other way around. But since you seem to be making "ideal world" assumptions that clearly don't apply in the real world, I will let you have your useless assumptions in your non-representative world. It is impossible to discuss reality when one of the parties refuses to acknowledge it.

Re:Who can blame them?

[Money for Nothin']

They are provided free (or at cost, but inseparable)

Basic economics: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

When you buy a car, you are paying for the radio along with the rest of the car. The radio is included by the manufacturer (a private entity) because they are inexpensive to manufacture and extremely popular.

I challenge you to buy a car without getting a radio. There are perhaps 5-10 of the 300+ models out there which you can opt to get the vehicle without a radio.

Then there apparently exists a demand for vehicles without even a radio (or with the option to remove it). Even given the inexpense of radio manufacture, there is consumer demand for radio-less vehicles.

In any case, nothing prevents you from removing the radio and selling it to somebody looking to replace theirs (indeed, my car is a domestic 2005 model, and yet, I've had mine replaced 3 times by the dealer because Delphi's design is garbage).

If a radio is in your possession, however (as I would bet one or more are), you're still forgetting one convenient device that is built into nearly every one of them: the "off" button. You are free at any time to turn off programs which may be offensive. You are free to change the station/channel. Even as an owner of a radio (or TV, or computer with Internet access), nobody is stopping you from avoiding the interception of programs which are in bad taste -- even the automakers who include radios in their cars.

I still fail to why foul language needs regulation when there are a variety of simple things you can do to take such language out of your life, and all these techniques follow established legal principles, such as the "no solicitors" sign example you yourself cited.

If you want government regulation of speech, the U.S. is (fortunately) among the worst nations to live in. You might find Iran or China or North Korea or Russia or even France (they ban so-called "hate speech") to be more palatable...

(BTW, I do get a kick out of arguing with supposed "conservatives" who claim to believe in the principle of limited government, only to find them hypocritically calling for bigger government when it suits their moral whims. (you may not be such a conservative, as you haven't explicitly indicated either way, but your views are consistent with that stance))

I will let you have your useless assumptions in your non-representative world.

Please cite a "useless assumption" I made. In the context of economics, you are still paying for the radio (it's hidden in the price of the car, as you note), and you can still sell the radio if you are required to take one as part of a deal (such as is the case with automobiles). That is entirely representative of the real world.

Re:Who can blame them?

[AK Marc]

They are provided free (or at cost, but inseparable)

Basic economics: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

When you buy a car, you are paying for the radio along with the rest of the car. The radio is included by the manufacturer (a private entity) because they are inexpensive to manufacture and extremely popular.

I think you are having a little trouble with your reading comprehension. What would you take the parenthetical "(or at cost, but inseparable)" to mean?

BTW, I do get a kick out of arguing with supposed "conservatives" who claim to believe in the principle of limited government, only to find them hypocritically calling for bigger government when it suits their moral whims. (you may not be such a conservative, as you haven't explicitly indicated either way, but your views are consistent with that stance)

Heh. I'm about as liberal as they come. They make fun of me at work all the time for my personal and political beliefs. That you are so clueless that you can't figure out what someone's beliefs are, and so myopic that you feel the need to put everone in a pidgeon hole just further reenforces my initial impression of you.

Oh, and the "liberal" stance is for control of that which affects everyone. Part of the rules in trade when they get to use the limited public resource of useful EM spectrum is that they have to follow certain rules.

Re:Who can blame them?

[Money for Nothin']

I think you are having a little trouble with your reading comprehension. What would you take the parenthetical "(or at cost, but inseparable)" to mean?

Quite a civil debater I see...

You (parenthetically) argued that radios included in cars are strictly-speaking not free, but may as well be for the purposes of the argument.

I argue that that is too economically-lazy a way to look at the situation, because there exist reasonable options (again, selling it) when the radio is viewed as a separate cost from the rest of the vehicle.

Heh. I'm about as liberal as they come. They make fun of me at work all the time for my personal and political beliefs. That you are so clueless that you can't figure out what someone's beliefs are, and so myopic that you feel the need to put everone in a pidgeon hole just further reenforces my initial impression of you.

Glad you're happy. Quite odd though to find a liberal defending private property rights whilst arguing for FCC limitations on foul language over the airwaves. Lieberman Democrat? Eh, whatever, it doesn't really matter.

Oh, and the "liberal" stance is for control of that which affects everyone. Part of the rules in trade when they get to use the limited public resource of useful EM spectrum is that they have to follow certain rules.

By that logic, the government may control *everything* having to do with our lives, because every single thing which occurs in this nation, no matter how disconnected it may seem, affects each of us. (The question inevitably is: for the sake of simplicity, at what point do we cut off the chain of dependencies?) For example:

* How you vote in whatever state you're from affects (minimally) the outcome of a national election which affects both of us.

* Your usage of gasoline in your vehicle deprives me (and everybody else) the use of the same gasoline; that's why you pay a price for it (the price of using that gasoline to the exclusion of others). Same goes for land and any other natural resource.

* Your downloads of software from some server may deprive somebody else of some amount of bandwidth -- that somebody else may be me, or it may be a 3rd person (or 4th, or 5th) who in turn deprives me of bandwidth, etc.. (this is assuming a server with a constantly nonzero bytes/sec flow of traffic, e.g. Windows Update)

And so forth. They're indirect, yet tangible examples which follow the (greatly over-exaggerated) theory that "a butterfly which flaps its wings in one part of the world causes a hurricane in another." And after all, they are examples of "that which affects everyone", or at least, people besides yourself, and since your support control of "that which affects everyone," you would support (government, I assume) control of all these things.

Perhaps you're right -- you *are* a liberal of the far-leftie type (rather than the American classical type), for only a hardened leftie would (perhaps not knowingly though, to be fair) advocate a position on government which ultimately devolves (as happened in Soviet Russia, China, N. Korea, and so forth) into totalitarian socialist systems.

I'll generously assume you didn't intend to make such a logically-blanketing statement though...

I, for one, prefer govn't control only in scenarios where there exists no real means for the 2 (or more) involved parties to work things out between themselves, whether in or out of a courtroom. Certain EPA regulations of factories and vehicles (which pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink, etc.) come to mind.

But of FCC regulation of foul language on the air and broadcast TV waves, that is far from one of those problems... Show me an on/off switch or power plug to the receiving device and I'll point out that the practical solution to your problem is in your hands.

Coincidence? I think _not_...

[Bluesy21]

This makes it nice and easy for the government to continue to trample peoples rights in the near future. They don't have to worry about young people getting together and protesting; these people probably won't even know they have rights within a few years....ok maybe thats a tad too ridiculous, but seriously these seems like its a little too convienent to just be 'kids aren't learning enough in schools.' So much of the daily cirriculum is forced upon teachers that there shouldn't be 'accidental' mishaps like this.

sooo sad

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way the same group knows where other countries are is if we have bombed them. angry about ebay fees -> http://www.powersellersunite.com

No one understands the Establishment Clause

[ikewillis]

The Establishment Clause is the very first line in the Bill of Rights and it surprises me that no one I talk to really seems to understand it.

Most Christians I talk to seem to assume that "seperation of church and state" is some made up popular conception which doesn't really exist as Constitutional precedent. "Show me where in the Constitution it says the words 'seperation of church and state'!" they scream. They forget that the Constitution was designed to be an evolving document interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and here is what they had to say:

From The United States Supreme Court Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing decision:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[adzoox]

"They forget that the Constitution was designed to be an evolving document interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and here is what they had to say:"

The pigs in Animal Farm were revisionists too.

"All Animals Are Equal"

became ...

"ALL Animals Are Equal Except Pigs ... Which Are More Than Equal"

The same people that make your argument also berate Christianity with this statement:

"Oh the Bible was written a long time ago, a lot of things are ancient"

And your witty statement that you have pasted so kindly for us still didin't answer the question:

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[jensen404]

They forget that the Constitution was designed to be an evolving document interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court

The only way the Constitution should "evolve" is by amendments.

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[Obfuscant]

They forget that the Constitution was designed to be an evolving document interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court,

No, it was designed to be a document enforced by the Supreme Court, with whatever interpretation being based on the intent of the authors and not the johny-come-lately revisionism of personal opinions of justices (or the interference of foreign concerns regarding the "right" way our government should operate.)

The fact remains that the US Constitution does NOT call for "separation of church and state", only for the state not to be involved in the establishment of religion. The original authors had no problem at all having religious materials and icons involved in the government (e.g., a congressional chaplain or religious mottos on the Supreme Court building), just with the government saying "this is the correct religion for YOU to practice."

And, despite complaints to the contrary, the words "under God" in a pledge of allegiance is not saying anything close to "this is the correct religion for YOU". If you object to the words, just don't say them. Problem solved. When you are actually forced to say them, you've got a complaint.

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

Well, this statement is patently absurd, since the US Government has laws which "aid all religions" and routinely aids established mainline religions over cults or whackos. (Try complaining that your "religion" requires human sacrifice and see if you get off a murder charge. But the laws against murder clearly hinder your free exercise of your religion.)

The Supreme Court is obviously not infallable; unfortunately, the only "court" which could say they were wrong is themselves, and when they choose to be wrong they aren't going to say they are.

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[wan23]

The first line of the post you responded to began with a comment about the first line of the bill of rights. The first ammendment begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" If you think the accepted interpretation is revisionist, what do *you* think that means?

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[MightyMartian]

Wow, someone making grand pronouncements about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights who appears to be ignorant of Thomas Jefferson and his views on religion.

What do they teach in American schools now, Napster 101?

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[RealAlaskan]

They forget that the Constitution was designed to be an evolving document interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, ...

Sorry, that's not just wrong, that's stupidly wrong.

If the Constitution was supposed to change with the times, via court interpretation, why did we need a process (two, actually) to amend it?

The Constitution was intended to be chains to bind the government, including the judiciary. The original intent was to express natural law, which never changes, by definition. Suggesting that the founding fathers intended for the meaning of the words in the constitution to change is like suggesting that Newton believed that the laws of physics would change over time. To give a more modern example, it's like quibbling over the meaning of ``is''. You can say it, but don't expect thinking people to take you seriously.

By the way, that Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing decision that you cite is an early example of judicial activists ignoring clear precedent and settled law to legislate from the bench. It's not their first big mistake, nor their most famous (I think Dred Scott wins both titles), but it's a biggie.

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Congress has the ability to fire any Supreme Court justice just by removing their seat on the bench.

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Sorry, that's not just wrong, that's stupidly wrong.

I would suggest you look up Marbury v. Madison.

Judicial review means, of course, that the judicial system (and specifically the Supreme Court) is responsible for judging the actions of other branches of the government through the lens of the Consitution. This is, of course, impossible to do without some degree of interpretation.

There are obviously some things which require fairly minimal interpretation. But even a seemingly self-evident proclamation requires a little bit of interpretation: theft is illegal, but the question is, precisely, constitutes theft? In dealing with the Constitution, the Supreme Court needs to interpret what they believe it means to the best of their ability, otherwise they can't really use it, and it becomes completely meaningless.

It is the responsibility of the legislative branch to construct law in such a way that it minimizes the level of interpretation the judicial branch needs to apply. "Legislating from the bench" is a ludicrous concept: the courts are just as bound by the Constitution as Congress is. Removing the Supreme Court's ability to evaluate the constitutionality of law effectively removes any constitutional check on the the power of Congress. As you say, if they don't like it, they can always begin the processes necessary to amend the Constitution.

Everson v. Board of Education is a perfect example of the sort of situations wherein the law needs to be interpreted to be made useful. The problem wasn't ignoring precedent: it was the lack of useful precedent. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly bound states to the same standards of due process as the federal government. In light of this, the Establishment Clause was similarly extended. You might not like the result, but it's not a particularly egregious contortion of the law, and shows just how judicial review is necessary to work through the consequences of Constitutional law.

The only part of the decision that should ever come up for debate is the distinction made in Chief Justice Black's ruling between de facto and de jure acts of Congress (in other words, the difference between explicitly proclaiming a state religion and just passing laws to give a particular religious establishment all the perks that come with that title). And that is only an issue if you choose to assume that the founding fathers were idiots who were incapable of properly structuring a sentence ("establishment" is not a verb!).

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[Wildfire Darkstar]

The Supreme Court is obviously not infallable; unfortunately, the only "court" which could say they were wrong is themselves, and when they choose to be wrong they aren't going to say they are.

That's not quite true....

The thing is, for all the talk of "legislating from the bench," the Supreme Court simply cannot do that. Yes, their interpretations of law aren't really up for further debate (although apparently nobody ever told that to Andrew Jackson, but I digress...), but they have no direct power over the Constitution itself, per se. Which means that, in the case of a particularly egregious decision on the part of the court, the amendment process is still open. There's also impeachment, in even more extreme circumstances.

Yes, it's not an easy process, but then, why should it be? In practice, only extreme cases ever get to the Supreme Court, so they only ever get to practice judicial review in extreme situations, as opposed to, say, Congress, who can pretty much decide to vote on whatever issue they feel like whenever they want to. Eventually, you need to draw a line so that contentious issues don't keep getting shunted between branches of the government, and the Supreme Court happens to be where the buck (more or less) stops. As you say, it's not infallible, but it's not that easy to come up with a better solution.

And, despite complaints to the contrary, the words "under God" in a pledge of allegiance is not saying anything close to "this is the correct religion for YOU". If you object to the words, just don't say them. Problem solved. When you are actually forced to say them, you've got a complaint.

It's a bit of a nonissue, I'll admit, but the problem is that the idea of "God" is a religious issue, and that the Pledge is enshrined in federal law. Under established precedent, that law is probably in contradiction of the first part of the Establishment Clause (I believe it is, but there's certainly more room for debate than if it specifically invoked, say, Catholicism). But to say that a problem only arises if you're forced to speak the Pledge is silly: while the second part of the clause ("or prohibit the free exercise thereof"), the first part has nothing to do with any coercion of individuals on the government's part.

But, as I said, it's a bit of a nonissue, and I while I tend to agree with the decision made by the Ninth Circuit, but, politically speaking, I can't help but wish it hadn't come up, if only because it has drawn a lot of truly dangerous reactions out of the woodwork. In short, I prefer to save my ammunition for the big battles :-)

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[Yolegoman]

Oh really? Care to argue against the entire statement Mr. Jefferson made?

The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, January 1, 1802, in an address to the Danbury Baptists

The whole point of the "seperation of church and state" was to prevent the government from running the church, NOT the church from running the government.

Unless, of course, you wish to argue with the one who wrote the Declaration of Independence and had much say in the Constitution, too.

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[ikewillis]

How depraved are you to alter the quote? I am speechless, are Christians so incensed at the thought that people think differently as to REWRITE HISTORY in order to favor them?

Here is the entire letter which you altered and distorted to change the meaning, linked to a source where it may be verified:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/jeff_w all.htm

On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

Honestly, it's impossible to argue with Christians because they pull shit like this...

You wish to distort reality and pretend like the founding fathers were Christians, not Deists. Here's another Thomas Jefferson quote to chew on:

http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)

I'm frankly infuriated that people are so self-deluded as to post such tripe in a vain attempt to distort reality. You should truly be ashamed of yourself, realize your attempts to distort reality around your ideology are flawed, repent, and accept a scientific view of reality. Otherwise, you are doomed to madness.

Re:No one understands the Establishment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

First post:
They forget that the Constitution was designed to be an evolving document interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, ...

Reply:
Sorry, that's not just wrong, that's stupidly wrong.
If the Constitution was supposed to change with the times, via court interpretation, why did we need a process (two, actually) to amend it?
My reply:
The fact that there are two (legislative) methods of amending the Constitution should tell you something. It was intended that the Constitution change with time. Not with "the times," which implies a kind of fad following or that the Const. should swing with public opinion. Rather, the Constitution was designed so that as the country changes, its government would follow.

Example:
Jefferson and most other founding fathers pictured an agrarian nation, with a strong tint to states rights. In layman's terms he envisioned America as a loose collection of individual states, each state full of farmers. Instead we are an industrial powerhouse with a strong central government. This came about through the Supreme Court. A document intended to govern a quasi-Confederacy of States now handles strong Federal government because the Supreme Court made rulings that interrupted the Constitution.

Re:This just in: American teens ignorant, apatheti

[aaron240]

Heh, funny, but the apathy thing was a 90's phenomenon. Now, the kids are *actively* seeking restricted rights and are simply not equipped to feel safe and remain free. Damn kids.

As also found in...

[WormholeFiend]

the Fark thread about the same article...

Some Graphic Representation of a Survey

Not just the first amendment

[rattler14]

Most people are unaware of the fact that there are 2 types of citizenship... US and State, and it makes a HELL of a lot of difference to understand the distinction

Why you are a US National

Also, the first 10 articles of the Bill or Rights are NOT amendments, they are declatory articles as stated in the preamble of the Bill of Rights.

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. "

So, just like the first amendment can't be altered or abolished, the 2nd, 5th, 9th, or 10th can't either. None of them can! They are not rights granted to you by a government, but rights that you were born with as a human being.

Get learned people
http://www.constitution.org/

I'm not trolling, hating, or being irritable... I'm just sick of hearing pundits, coworkers, and friends spout off what the constitution says... when they haven't even read the thing!

enjoy all

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Shadow Wrought]

Not to troll, but if the 1st Amendment isn't an Amendment, then why it called an Amendment? And why wasn't it added until 1791 along with the other first ten, when the Constitution was adopted in 1786?

The fisrt 10 Amendments, like any of the others can be repealed or changed, should the People decide to do it. Due to the difficulty in garnering enough support to amend the Constitution, however, the likelyhood of it happening is pretty small. But there is certainly a difference between possible but not likely and impossible.

It is also possible to alter the Constitution through a new Constitutional Convention. The mechanism is there and, in theory, they could even scrap the entire Constitution and start all over from scratch. Again its not likely, but it is possible.

Finally, for the record, IANAL- but I did take a year of COnLaw classes as an undergradute in getting my Law and Society degree.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

So, just like the first amendment can't be altered or abolished, the 2nd, 5th, 9th, or 10th can't either. None of them can!

Utterly absurd. Any part of the constitution can be amended by following the appropriate constitutional process.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Jeffrey Baker]

Well now we know, the high school kids are ignorant because they've been listening to this misinformation they find on Slashdot. The above post demonstrates the problem. The poster, speaking in an authoritative tone, makes a statement which is completely false. "So, just like the first amendment can't be altered or abolished, the 2nd, 5th, 9th, or 10th can't either." That isn't true. Any part of the Constitution can be altered or repealed, or the whole document can be scrapped by a constitutional convention.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[CrimsonAvenger]

Also, the first 10 articles of the Bill or Rights are NOT amendments, they are declatory articles as stated in the preamble of the Bill of Rights.

Umm, no.

They ARE Amendments.

There is NO "preamble" to the Bill of Rights.

Your quote sounds like something from a history book, but it is NOT part of the Constitution, though the reasons it gives for the Bill of Rights is substantially correct.

A more useful link is this which contains an annotated copy of the Constitution.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the websites which you reference have to be most poorly written ill-rationalized pieces of rhetorical junk I've ever seen.

Citizenship isn't defined in the Constitution either. In fact, it often refers to the "people of the United States" instead of citizens, and does so quite deliberately.

I won't bother tearing about the argument made on the website you referenced, it does a good job of doing that itself.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd ammendment, despite what the NRA's lobbying otherwise, does not apply to individuals, only to militias.
Sounds like you need to go back to civics class.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[sdowney]

Most people are unaware of the fact that there are 2 types of citizenship... US and State, ...

Most people are unaware because it's nonsense, fabricated by so-called tax protesters.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[pladdtn82]

Very true. Any ammendment, or any part of the Constitution can be altered or repealed by a future ammendment. The 21st ammendment essentially nixed the 18th (prohibition). The 17th ammendment changed the manner of the election of senators, originally prescribed in Article I, Section 3.

Furthermore, I would argue that the ability to modify or overturn any law is important. Once you say "This law is permanant, it can't be changed" you've closed the door on democracy. Granted, I doubt very highly enough people would ever want to repeal or weaken the 1st ammendment, but the freedom to be able to do so is nonetheless important.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Leo McGarry]

Sigh.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Recognize that? It's the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That's not an excerpt. That's the whole thing, every word.

The First Amendment is not a declaration. It is a law, a law that prohibits the Congress of the United States from passing certain types of legislation. None of the amendments are declarations. They're laws that help to define the scope and jurisdiction of the power of the federal government.

The Constitution, in Article V, defines the process for amending the Constitution itself. Any part of the Constitution can be amended, as long as the process is followed. Entire chunks of the Constitution as they were ratified in 1789 are now null and void, having been amended in the years since. The first part of Article I section 3, for instance, no longer applies; it's been replaced by the 17th Amendment.

Because the first 10 amendments are part of the Constitution, they, too, can be amended, as described in Article V. If we --as a country --wanted to change the way the First Amendment is worded, we could do that. If we wanted to get rid of it altogether, we could do that too. Because we, the people, make the rules. We are not permanently bound to a document that was written more than two centuries ago. We can change it in any way we see fit.

So that whole "the first 10 articles of the Bill of Rights are NOT amendments" thing is completely wrong. And the "the first amendment can't be altered or abolished" thing is also completely wrong. Not a little bit wrong, not right in substance but wrong in detail. Like completely wrong.

Oh, you're wrong about citizenship, too. It's right there, in black and white, in the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. That PDF you linked to is all funny-business, and about as academically rigorous as those manifestos by dim bulbs who claim that they don't really have to pay income taxes because of some obscure technicality of the law that only they understand. It's armchair law from armchair philosophers and deserves no consideration whatsoever.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[jrumney]

So, just like the first amendment can't be altered or abolished, the 2nd, 5th, 9th, or 10th can't either. None of them can! They are not rights granted to you by a government, but rights that you were born with as a human being.

They are rights granted to US citizens by the US goverrnment. There are around 5 billion human beings who were not born with these rights, and there are but a few hundred million in the US who have these rights, some of whom kid themselves over how easily those "rights" could be taken away.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[mopomi]

Have you read it? because actually, you're mixing the Articles with the Amendments. The commonly known "bill of rights" is the set of the first ten Amendments:
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut ion/constitut ion.table.html#amendments)

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]
Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]
Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]
Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]
Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]
Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]
Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]
Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]
Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]
Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]

The "declartory articles" are the Articles of the Constitution, and there are only 7. Article V sets up the Amendment process to the Constitution. Notice the dates for the first ten Amendments? They're not the date of the signing of the Constitution (1787), they were added 4 years later.

The "Original" Constitution consisted of:

Preamble ["We the people...."]
Article I [The Legislative Branch]
Article II [The Presidency]
Article III [The Judiciary]
Article IV [The States]
Article V [The Amendment Process]
Article VI [Legal Status of the Constitution]
Article VII [Ratification]
Signers

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

look at that preamble again. read it, this time.

note: emphasis mine

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States , all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

here's a link to the text

Re:Not just the first amendment

[michaelggreer]

I agree with you that these are human rights, and as rights do not exist at the whim or pleasure of the state, but reside in ourselves

However, your weird idea that you are not a US citizen is quite beyond me. If you believe this, then I assume you forgo using highways, Pell grants, Social Security, Medicare, anything derived from federally funded science, etc. Otherwise, you are just taking other peoples money and then whining about it.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[k_187]

Yes, while that is true, the grandparent is correct that our rights are not given to us by the constitution nor the wording within, but are part of whatever it is that makes us human and as such, cannot be taken away. The government may stop us from expressing our rights, as in censorship cases, but our rights are part of us, and cannot be taken away. The bill of rights simply lists some of the more important ones. It was only added to appease certain states that wanted those rights listed. The original thinking was that they need not be listed as they are already ours, and listing them would make people think that those rights are the only rights we possess (this is why the constitution is mutable, there are other rights that may not have been discovered yet, the right to privacy that has come up in recent years comes to mind). So yes, the constitution as we have it can be scrapped, but the ideas and rights contained within can't be.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[geoffspear]

I think you've stumbled on a good topic of research. We know that most American students don't understand the Constitution, but it would be more interesting to find out what percentage of Slashdot posters who expound on constitutional law have actually read the Constitution.

That number would probably be about as depressing as the percentage of citizens in general who have read it.

It's not like it's a long document. Even a really slow reader should be able to get through it in a couple of hours, stopping to look up the hard words.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Shalda]

Sir, I point you to the relevant portion of the fourteenth amendment, specifically:

are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This is at times highly relevant to the purposes of interstate commerce law. Also, very important to tax law if you have earned income in more than one state in the course of a year. This is also often a touchy point for college students when the subject of in-state and out-of-state tuition comes up. So, all in all, it is a very important issue, and not just to tax protesters.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[mopomi]

Mod parent up, insightful, funny!

I constantly find this in all the forums I read. . . People (I don't want to generalize too much, but so-called libertarians seem to be, by far, the worst) who don't read the Constitution but rather allow some schmuck to do it for them then rail at others to read it. . .

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Jeffrey Baker]

You hit the issue almost perfectly, but you should note the linked PDF isn't just similar to dim-bulb tax protest manifestos, it is in fact a dim-bulb tax protest manifesto. Chech out the main part of that site, which links to other fine documents such as "The Great IRS Hoax", "Income Tax Freedom", and, my favorite, "Social Security: Mark of the Beast."

Re:Not just the first amendment

[26199]

That's an odd thing to say. What does having a right mean if nobody recognises it?

If you are not granted your rights, you can shout as loudy as you want that you have them. It won't make one bit of difference.

'Should' is not a very convincing word.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Hobadee]

Actually the "don't have to pay income taxes" thing is something completely different. I don't understand it completely, but it has to do with the way we get payed. It's something dumb like "wages" aren't actually taxable but "income" is. I know there are 2 terms and what you make at your job technically isn't "income". Anyways, I'll continue to pay my "income" taxes because I know that it's a nessasary evil to keep this country functioning. Of course, I may not WANT it functioning in it's current condition.....

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Leo McGarry]

The basis of our philosophy is that all people are entitled to certain basic civil rights, and that among those are the rights to life and liberty. We also recognize other fundamental civil rights like the right to own property and the right to religious expression.

These rights aren't granted to us by anybody. We're endowed with them by our Creator. And they're not just reserved for the citizens of a particular nation or the members of a particular class. Everybody has them.

This belief lies at the very basis of our entire political and social system. It's axiomatic.

You can express the opinion that you don't think that's how it should be, if you want to, but good luck. People have been trying to do that for hundreds of years now, and nobody yet has been able to.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Leo McGarry]

Not to mention trade or the common defense. Anybody who denies enjoying US citizenship should discard all possessions that weren't manufactured or produced in the United States, and also should immediately report to the nearest British, French, Spanish, Mexican, Austrian, Turkish, German or Japanese embassy to apply for citizenship in one of those countries. It doesn't matter which one; at some point in the past two centuries, our federal government has defended us from them all.

It's not just about benefits and entitlements. We literally owe a debt of gratitude for our very liberty to the federal government which so often has employed the economic, diplomatic or military might of this nation to secure it for us.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay closer attention. Those ammendments can't be altered or abolished because they merely codify the natural state of things. Those rights aren't granted by government but by our Creator (see Declaration of Independence) so they can't be taken away by governmene either. Removing the Bill of Rights from the Constitution therefore does not abolish it because the rights still exist.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights (see Defn. 6 and note that we're speaking of inalienable rights are inherant. Privileges are granted.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[rattler14]

Not to troll, but if the 1st Amendment isn't an Amendment, then why it called an Amendment?

because people just started calling them that. I mean, it makes sense doesn't it? It was after the constitution was done with.

And here is a little thought process for you. We made the government correct? So therefore, we gave it power. It cannot have more power than we orignally had because we can't give the government what we didn't possess at one point. It's a violation of the basic laws of nature.

So now you're telling me that these amendments GIVE me rights?
So we gave congress the authority to give us back our rights?

You can repeal the first amendment, but that doesn't mean that freedom of speech is unlawful. Hell, throw away the first 10 amendments, I'll still use freedom of speech. Sure, I'll get arrested, but they can't stop me from using my unalienable rights (not unless they kill me).

Re:Not just the first amendment

[rattler14]

right, you can throw out all the amendments and burn the constitution, but that doesn't mean you no longer have the freedom of speech.

If the government passed an amendment saying you couldn't urinate, would you just hold it and burst? No, because your a human being. You have unalienable rights that are not granted to you by a government. They are given to you from a higher source.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[rattler14]

Question: Who granted authority to the US government?
Answer: We the People.

It's true, you can just burn the whole damn US constitution if we wanted to... but does that mean there would be no more unalienable rights? Does your freedom of speech only exist because of the first article of the Bill of Rights? NO. It is a right you were BORN WITH. For someone to be able to take that away from you means that you must be subordinate to them. We the people created the damn government.

Read the declaration of independance and then argue your point again.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[rattler14]

Um, wow.

Have you read the 14th amendment.

14
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

notice the word "and"
and don't bother tearing about arguments made by the website i referenced, because you haven't even bothered to quote court cases that show your point of view. Read the court case
Colgate v. Harvey and then come back.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[rattler14]

sigh.

2nd amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

hmm, the right of the people... sounds like individuals to me.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[26199]

People say rights are inherent, but that's just according to their moral viewpoint. It's silly to pretend that other moral viewpoints don't exist.

There are some rights that virtually everyone agrees upon, but, the principle is the same. The only way you get a right is if everyone agrees you should have it.

Re:Not just the first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

We (metamods) are here for something. :-)

hmm...

[borawjm]

then perhaps the new generations won't be shoving democracy down other peoples throats... /trolling

not bright

[Apreche]

Like most studies this one only provides one possible interpretation of the data collected. Another possible interpretation of this information is that students think the media is evil and manipulative, like we do. And they are naieve enough to think that the government interfering with this will make the media better. When I was in high school whenever I saw a problem my answer was always "the government should step in and do X". Only later did I realize how stupid this was. I know many others who had similar thought patterns.

I'm not surprised

[gaylenek]

With USA schools today being so wrapped up in socalizing children, following the "A is for Average" and the Politically Correct mantra, I'm not surprised to hear that student's don't know much about the First Amendmentm much less other important documents that are the cornerstone of the USA. Heck, schools today are re-writing US history to be overly zealous about being politically correct to the point the text has lost the original reason why a group of people moved from England to Holland to the land now called the United States of America.

Re:I'm not surprised

[snorklewacker]

Yunno, have you even bothered to look at your local high school's texts, or are you just repeating the same propoganda you hear on Fox News?

They do lie, you know.

Regularly.

As a matter of policy.

"Political Correctness" isn't exactly a good thing, but it's hardly the bogeyman you think it is. Throwing it out like some kind of shibboleth is just bleating to the same conservative crowd, but actually tells no one anything of substance.

You are part of the problem.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm only 21 so public school is not so far behind me. The GP is using the PC straw man* but still has a valid point.

We were not taught to become homosexuals or atheists or to vote Democrat in school. However the GP is correct in one thing - more emphasis is being put on social engineering than education. US History was a joke - we spent more time on group activities that were supposed to be teaching us to be productive 'team members' than we did getting down to the meat and potatos of the constitution.

*and in this case I'm not really bothered by it. Usually when right wingers bring up the evils of "political correctness" its a not-so-subtle appeal to racism.

Re:I'm not surprised

[joshdick]

I'm not suprised either, but for an entirely different reason. U.S. students today are simply too ignorant on matters of government and civics.

This study was by first-amendment advocates and for first-amendment advocates, so the first amendment is all it focused on. Had the study been done about any other topic from high school civics (such as any other constitutional law, who their representatives are, who's on the Supreme Court, etc.) the results would've been the same. Students don't know nearly enough.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Cow herd]

"Political Correctness" isn't exactly a good thing, but it's hardly the bogeyman you think it is.

You're right, it's much worse. It's the worst kind of antiquated logic that gives liberalism a bad name (or worse name, depending on where you stand). It's like saying that if we paste kool-aid labels on Drano, it'll make the Drano OK to drink.

Re:I'm not surprised

[AliasF97]

What does Fox News have to do with it? "I don't agree, therefore, it must be Fox News propaganda." Let's debate on substance, not labels.

What I've seen of recent trends in some public schools, there is some cause for concern regarding altering history to conform to what our current notion of fairness is. I had heard stories from people I knew, who have children in public schools, about prominent figures in U.S. history being largely ignored because they were being judged, and therefore shunned, by today's standards. I came across this article last year that I think illustrates this concern effectively.

While the intentions of excluding, or downplaying some history, or historical figures, because we, in today's society, may disagree with some of their actions is certainly debatable, I think the article that is the topic of this whole discussion today shows how dangerous it can be if we spend too much time thinking about what we want to be, and not enough time looking at what we once were.

Re:I'm not surprised

[spaceyhackerlady]

"Political Correctness" isn't exactly a good thing, but it's hardly the bogeyman you think it is. Throwing it out like some kind of shibboleth is just bleating to the same conservative crowd, but actually tells no one anything of substance.

In my experience the only people who invoke Political Correctness for anything other than ironic effect are those (usually male, white and heterosexual) who are horrified to find that the world has changed, and that the political, economic and social power they once monopolized must now be shared.

With people like me.

...laura

Re:I'm not surprised

[Aeiri]

Wait a minute...

Are you saying Draino isn't okay to drink?

Another brick in the wall

[dalamarian]

We don't need no education...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[plague3106]

I don't know where you went to school, but in my HS the essay writing was more like your college profs. expectations. As long as we could back up what we were saying from the book (essays usually were about the book we were reading), you got a good grade.

Do have to agree the rest of your post though..

2nd Amendment

[Shadow Wrought]

I'm surprised at just how ignorant the students were about the 1st, but I have to wonder what they had to say about the 2nd. I'm not a 2nd Amendment zealot by any means (I don't own any guns and probably won't any time soon), but it has as much authority as the other Amendments do, yet is often discounted as "not really applying anymore" or something similar. What strikes me as interesting is that one of the main groups which pushed the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as no longer being valid was the media- which owes sll of its protection to the 1st.

I downright shudder when I think about the average American's current understanding of our Constitution.

Re:2nd Amendment

[TheRaven64]

A lot of the argument over the second amendment comes from the fuzzy wording. The second amendment states:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What is not clear is whether this is stating `We take the fact that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and it therefore follows that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,' or `The fact that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, implies that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' Taking the second interpretation, the second part of the statement is only valid if the first part is valid, and it can be argued that (in the absence of marauding bands of armed natives) the first part no longer applies.

The counter to this argument is that it is necessary for the populace to be armed to the extent that it can overthrow the government if its powers are abused. This seems like a fairly week argument, since there are a large number of guns in America, and they are all used either for sport, personal defence (not the defence of the free state) or crime - not for preventing the erosion of liberties guaranteed by your constitution.

For the record, I do not support overthrowing the US government by force, I just find it strange that the gun lobby seems not to either considering that the freedoms they claim can only be protected by guns are being lost while they shoot targets and small fury animals.

Re:2nd Amendment

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The 2nd Amendment is a poster child for the practice of conducting a popularity contest about parts of the US Constitution. As you noted, there is a widespread feeling that that amendment no longer applies. Isn't it funny, though, that it's still there in the document, and hasn't been amended away by a clearly defined process of change that has been used in several other instances?

I have no problem with people attempting to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. The trouble is, they have no stomach for the actual process of change, which involves the US Congress, and then must pass at least 38 of the 50 states. When people refuse to obey the law of the land, it really is time to unlock the rifle and let them know the consequences of such contempt.

Re:2nd Amendment

[drinkypoo]

One view on the phrase "well-regulated" is that each member of said militia should have a weapon in good working order, and a certain amount of powder and amount in weight or number of bullets for said weapon. That phrase should never have been part of the constitution since its meaning is undocumented and open to debate. Even if its meaning were clear, the point at which something would be well-regulated (as opposed to poorly regulated, or excellently regulated) is a matter for debate.

Re:2nd Amendment

[bshroyer]

"ARTICLE [II.} A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

You can't justify infringing on the latter because the People haven't yet organized the former. How effective would a well-regulated Militia be if their rights to bear arms had been revoked ten years earlier?

I'm guessin that most of the members of NRA are aware of the full text of this rather succinct Amendment.

Re:2nd Amendment

[J'raxis]

The Supreme Court decision that stated that the "well-regulated Militia" clause was meant as a prerequisite for firearms possession (as opposed to a mere descriptive phrase, or an example, as many gun rights advocates argue) was United States v. Miller. This case also said that citizens, "when called for service ... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

So, since you obviously support this decision, you must believe that ordinary citizens should be able to possess fully-automatic rifles, explosives, and other arms that are "in common use at [this] time." Right?

Yes, it's parsing words, but so's quibbling over meaning of the first clause of the Second Amendment.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Detritus]

How many hoplophobes understand the 18th century meaning and usage of "well regulated"?

Re:2nd Amendment

[Enoch Zembecowicz]

At the time the second ammendment was written the phrase well regulated did not have the same meaning it has today. It typically meant that something worked properly. More info can be found here

Re:2nd Amendment

[FatherOfONe]

I just find it strange that the gun lobby seems not to either considering that the freedoms they claim can only be protected by guns are being lost while they shoot targets and small fury animals.

I think I can help you out here. The first thing most piss poor dictators try and do is remove the ability of the citizens to challenge them by force. They usually do this under the guise of security. Then when they have no serious "threats" to worry about they start to do more and more horrible actions against their people. This is why it is worded in the way it is in the second amendment. It is assumed that everyone will own a gun, and as such this right will never be taken away for any purpose. They knew all too well what could happen if the government got out of hand.

Saddam did it, and the Weimar government (Germans) did it before Hitler came to power, thus making it very difficult(impossible) to stop him.

I also want to point out how disconnected some of our current senators are: There is a program that models what the economy would be given a current tax rate. It is far from perfect but you can model how much money the government would have if the tax rate went up 1% on the top x% of people. One senator asked to see what the figures would be at 100% for all people. He was serious....

So do I think the U.S. government is going to do any of this? Nope, at least not in my lifetime. I am not at all worried about it. Now I was a little worried about the wacko's at BATF a few years back. Janet Rino and crowd was way out of control and seemed to come in with guns blazing. The only thing that seemed to "cool" her and those idiots was some mentally unstable person to go in and blow up a federal building and another crazy guy in Texas to actually kill a few Federal agents.

My last point is that Reno and company did NOT value anyones life (Ruby Ridge and Waco) and shot first and asked questions later. Then when confronted by "some" force suddenly started to act more reasonably in the future. Granted that force was an insane person. So just in my lifetime I have seen a government agency "bend" the law and be brought back to normal by a armed citizens. I want to say again that I do NOT condone what McVay did nor any of those people at Waco. It is just my observation that after people started to defend themselves better, the BATF changed a lot.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Guppy06]

Congress has regulated it: all men between 18 and 45 and all women serving in National Guard or state guard units are part of the militia and have to sign up for Selective Service (to facilitate transferring them from the unorganized militia to federal forces, i. e. the draft). Problem solved.

Regulated != Organized.

Re:2nd Amendment

[gmcraff]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. To continue with the subject at hand, I'd say that most high school kids and products of the US high school system don't know what any of the articles of the Bill of Rights actually say.

How many non-NRA members (of which catagory I fall into) understand that the 18th century phrase "well-regulated" translates into "subject to regulations of a higher authority" in 20th century American English? Or that the regulation of the militia applies to those actively engaged in militia duty?

Or that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a present participle, rather than a clause? That means that the phrase is intended as a justification, not a limitation.

Or who the "militia" entails. In the words of the founding father George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." Under the US Code, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, 311, the militia is legally all males over 17 years of age, plus any females that are part of the National Guard. Anyone not in the National guard and not female is part of the unorganized militia.

Or what the intended purpose of the militia, being the whole of the people, is? In the words of Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts during the floor debate of the Bill of Rights: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." From which we can infer that even though we have a standing Army now, it is not necessarily a good thing, Posse Comitatus restrictions notwithstanding.

Consider these roughs drafts of the Second Amendment:

• "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals." (by the Pennsylvania Legislature)
• "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (by James Madison)
• "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." (from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason)

A more modern version of the Second Amendment might be written thus: "No law, rule or regulation infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be passed, in order that the militia, being subject to regulation of conduct and civilian authority, may be effective in providing security to the nation." The Second Amendment is a limitation on the powers of the government, and a limitation on the powers of any majority bloc, as is all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. It is intended to be the final defense against subjugation of the American people, whether from an external power or by their own government.

Finally, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when th

Re:2nd Amendment

[alan_dershowitz]

United States code defines the militia as composing of the body of healthy adult male citizens, so it's not even like limiting firearm ownership to the militia is all that restrictive anyway. In context it effectively meant anyone who could pick up a gun was responsible for civil defense, and had a right to be armed for that end.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw automatic weapons... I want the right to bear a cruise missile, since they're commonly used these days. Hells yeah!

Re:2nd Amendment

[Inthewire]

Yeah?
So what?
It didn't in 1791.

Re:2nd Amendment

[CaptainCarrot]

There's yet another way to regard this amendment.

Well-regulated doesn't look like an ambigious phrase to modern eyes, but at the time it was written it was. We tend to regard it as meaning "well-ordered" exclusively, but it had, at the time, an alternative meaning of "well-equipped." You have to discern the meaning from the context.

How do you do that here? Well, this is one of the few amendments where the purpose is spelled out, so the right it guarantees must have something to do with the stated purpose. If "well-regulated" meant "well-ordered" here, we would expect the rest of the amdendment to address that, perhaps by guaranteeing the right of the people to self-organize as a militia or giving some government body the responsibility for doing so. Instead, it guarantees the right to bear arms, and so address the issue of equipping the militia. "Well-regulated" is most likely therefore to be interpreted in the second sense.

Re:2nd Amendment

[bshroyer]

+1 Insightful

I'd never looked at it that way before. Thanks for the insight.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I hate to spend too much energy parsing the phrase, but it's possible that the framers intended the phrase the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as a modifier for the phrase A well regulated Militia. I think that this is the logical conclusion of your interpretation.

Re:2nd Amendment

[CaptainCarrot]

Well, it would tend to explain that second comma which isn't really otherwise explicable. I know that, back in those days, they'd use far more commas, than we do today, but that one doesn't otherwise make much sense, even by their rules.

"Well-regulated" as well-equipped is a secondary meaning, but I've seen some conservative commentators overstate the case and try to claim it was the exclusive meaning of the phrase back then. It wasn't, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't the intended meaning in this place either.

The usual thing to do when trying to discern what the phrasing of part of the Constitution was understood to mean when written is to look at contemporary discussion about it, but I don't know of any about the 2nd Amendment -- other than that atttempts to restrict gun ownership outside the government's military are a purely modern phenomenon. Do you know of any?

Re:2nd Amendment

[alan_dershowitz]

We didn't have a national guard in 1791, so I don't see very well how it couldn't have meant able bodied citizens.

Re:2nd Amendment

[bshroyer]

I know of none, no.

I have a feeling that, if the Framers were reading this thread, they'd be saying, "They think that we meant to say what?" I can almost hear a Homer Simpsonesque "Doh!"

Jefferson would think that it's crazy that gun control is even a topic of discussion.

It sure looks like a straighforward clause. I'd never given it another thought until this thread. Suddenly, I see a much clearer, simpler intent. I'm not aware of anyone else who's made this interpretation, now or then.

Hold up.

[Anonymous Coward]

You spend all your money on wars instead of a proper education system, then wonder why your kids are dumb as shit?

I guess they aren't the only ones who need a clue.

Re:Hold up.

[valkraider]

I didn't spend any money on wars. All my tax dollars go to USGS and the Forestry Service. Maybe it was someone else who bought the war...

Re:Hold up.

[TheRaven64]

Ironic how little value is placed on democracy by the youth of a nation that seems intent on imposing it on the rest of the world.

Re:Hold up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as the slashdot fortune said the other day...

"Democracy is a government where you can say what you think even if you don't think."

With no investment in education, these kids aren't being brought up to think for themselves (or at all) and make for any kind of a truly effective democratic system. They're being brought up to be slaves for the corporations that do most of their upbringing, and to fight and die in wars to protect what only the upper 1 percent get to enjoy.

It's the most subtle form of totalitarianism.

Re:Hold up.

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Yes, Education is important (Mine left me only knowing how far behind I am), but unlike going to war, it really isn't the Federal Government's job as provided by the constitution. It really should be left up to the states, or it needs to be added to the part of the constitution that talks about what powers the Fed's have.

Generally

[kilodelta]

This is the dumbing down of America folks. This is what No Child Left Behind has brought to bear. Granted, I'm one of those in-betweeners as in in between the Baby Boom and Gen-X but we had the Constitution drilled into us. And yes, I went to parochial schools from 1st through 12th.

Shocking!

[Anonymous Coward]

Government schools fail to teach students on limited government, and much everything else.

shortchanged

[kernel_dan]

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes.

Why do I always get the extreme minority?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Mr Guy]

I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech. You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for. A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".

If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.

Sounds like you had a learning opportunity and you failed the lesson.

Pointing out the problem is not causing problem

[Anonymous Coward]

' standardized tests do nothing but dumb down curriculum '

The standardized tests do nothing more than point out the problem of schools being too lazy to educate. They are not the cause of the problem. D not blame the messenger for the message.

Re:Pointing out the problem is not causing problem

[valkraider]

Actually, they ARE *part* of the problem. It is impossible with one STANDARDIZED test to gauge the capability and education level of every kid in my daughter's class, let alone the whole country.

Every kid is different. Every day is different. Every region is different. Every school is different.

Some people do poorly on tests but are highly educated. Some people do great on tests who could care less about education.

Tests should be used merely as a reference. Maybe an indicator. But they should not be used as the whole measurement. There is more to a child than you can indicate on a paper form once a year.

Re:Pointing out the problem is not causing problem

[lgw]

Standardized tests are a great indicator of totally failing to educate, however. Way back when I was in high school (and dinosaurs roamed the Earth), the district had standardized tests to locate individual schools with problems, and prevent social promotion. Some teachers complained about "teaching to the tests" but the reality was the tests were darn easy to pass.

In the first year the tests were offered the bar was set very low, in case there were problems with test itself. On the math test, 26% was a passing grade. I believe that one could pass that test by answering 'B' on every question. At one high school, more than half the students failed. The mind boggles.

There may be more to a child than you can determine from a test, but a test can nevertheless determine that a school system has totally failed a child.

Re:Pointing out the problem is not causing problem

[GenSolo]

Actually they are part of the problem because they distill the entire curriculum down to a set of facts. Teachers therefore teach these facts in order to get the kids to pass the test without teaching the intricate interconnections among the facts and the relationships that make the facts matter. It doesn't matter if you know that John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln on April 14th of 1865 if you don't understand why, and that's not something that can be expressed as an answer to a multiple choice question. Standardized tests make school about passing tests rather than learning.

Note that I'm not against standardization of testing. I'm against the sort of standardized tests that we have because they have to be taken over the course of a class period. We need comprehensive standardized tests that involve essay questions to demonstrate an actual understanding of the subject matter instead of multiple choice questions that anyone knowledgeable in test-taking can pass with even a minor grasp of the material.

Re:Pointing out the problem is not causing problem

[valkraider]

I would like to compliment you on actually reading my whole post before replying. Something not seen on Slashdot very often.

I agree. I think tests are valuable, and they can indeed mark a trend. For example, if 50% of a school's kids fail a certain type of test - they should look into it.

But alternatively they should not take test scores for granted - especially when it can negatively impact the KIDS.

For example. One of my best friends was an extremely poor test taker in High School. He failed almost every test. He also was merely a mediocre student, making Bs and Cs. He did terrible on the ACT, and even failed the ASVAB (which you almost have to try to do).

He couldn't get in to college, so he went to community college. He worked very hard for a few years, then got admitted to a regular college. He worked VERY hard for 5 years and now has a Masters in aeronautical engineering and is a well established engineer.

If they could have just found another way to judge his potential than the ACT, he might have saved a few years and a lot of extra effort.

I have no way of knowing what an ideal system would be, but I guarantee that an ideal system would not be one that would be applied nationally.

Tests are important - but they are not very realistic in real-world sense. Things like working in groups, research, and ability to find answers to tough issues are much more applicable.

But What do I know, I am just a guy in the system... I could be wrong.

Pledge of Allegiance?

[gardyloo]

How many students understand the Pledge of Allegiance? They're swearing allegiance to a republic about which they understand very, very little, and do it gladly, because it's the Done Thing.
People shouldn't be pressured to say the thing until they're 18, at least, and have some inkling of what's going on. They shouldn't be *pressured* at all, in fact.

I was so resentful of having to say it when I was a kid (and only realized this in 6th grade), that I was consistently the only one NOT to stand for it in high school and beyond. One gets some strange evil eyes when you don't do the Done Thing.

hmm

[DarkLox]

All your freedom are belong to us

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[log0n]

Just an FYI, civics classes (basing from your id #) like we had in high school haven't been around in nearly a decade. In fact, my junior year of HS (94 iirc) was the year civics was entirely phased out (and I went to good HS, properly sized classes, music and art programs in good check, etc). (I work in a public school system and I just checked the 2004-05 HS Catalog of classes just to make sure I wasn't misinforming)

American History is still taught, but it's basically as a timeline of events. Civics used to cover everything from your responsibilities as a US citizen to the goals and purpose of the amendments, Bill of Rights, etc.

Basically, everything being taught now comes from a point of view of no judgement calls. If there is something open to interpretation, either it's not taught, or it's taught from a historical context as opposed to the 'meaning' or 'message' of said lesson.

It's how you can teach a religious studies class in a HS. You can learn the history, you just can't preach the subject matter. The same rules now apply to 'preaching US citizenship'.

Just FYI.

In other news...

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

...78% of students surveyed were surprised that there was something called the "first amendment"

...64% went home to download mp3s

...81% thought that nudity and swearing should be allowed on network TV

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Frymaster]

In high school I was on the newspaper staff for a while. We had a major part of an issue planned... The principal vetoed the whole deal.

the thing that everyone is forgetting is this: high school is not now nor has it ever been anything like "real life".

witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."

since the dawn of the formal state educational system we have been creatinga purly artificial environment for our children with values, mores and codes of conduct that bear no resemblence to the real world whatsoever.

so... why should these results be a surprise?

The age/experience/maturity factor?

[GillBates0]

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.

Instead of blindly attributing these figures wholly to decreasing awareness and lack of liberty in schools (I'm not denying these causes), I think that age and maturity (or lack thereof) are likely to skew the results. Most teenagers have "bigger" issues to worry about, personal problems, relationships, relationships, etc which take a higher priority in their lives than something as far removed (atleast at that age) as the constitution. Should it be this way? I don't know...but I certainly think the raging chemicals/hormones at that age certainly clouds up one's thinking.

It's likely that adults, who've pretty much settled down into a stable life (teachers/etc) and have been acquainted with politics, and other such "adult" topics for a while would be (atleast I hope so) more concerned about these issues.

Look at the school system

[Kyle Hamilton]

Im a Freshmen in college and I can rember clearly my deep love fro big brother I mean the Clovis Unified School System, Dress Codes, being told what you can and can not write in papers or what can and cant be talked ahout in the class room. With such restrictions in the public education system im not surprised in the slightest that our kids dont understand the basic concepts of there god given rights, yes they read them in the books that there given, but there not shown them by there teachers or parents. I rember I wrote a essay about abortion and was told to go to my learning director because my stand wasnt correct.I also got sent to my Learning Director because my essay on freedom in the united states stated that our rights were being erroded by Bush and that the Patiot Aact helped hid us of our Civil Libertys. Now I ask you how should children learn goverment when the system doesnt let them be free?

Re:Look at the school system

[syrinx]

Perhaps you actually got sent to the "Learning Director" because you apparently have no concept of how to write things in English? My brain hurts from trying to make sense of your post.

Re:Look at the school system

[Kyle Hamilton]

sorry im dyslexic

Are there really in school students that care?

[Paul8069]

I'm not trying to start and argument or anything, just pointing out that I doubt most kids in high school care. You leanred about your rights in a class you either skipped or wished you did. These things just aren't on the minds of kids.
However, I'm betting if this test were conducted on college students, the results would be a lot different. It's at about that age people start to get interested in such things and investigate into them. Which is probably why there are so many political protests at colleges or being done by college (or college-age) people. Most often when a high school student protests, it's in emulation of someone else.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Johnny5000]

I agree with pretty much all you have to say, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you meant by this:
Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?

What do psychology and sociology classes have to do with a lack of understanding of the first amendment?
You might as well have blamed kids skipping history class to take more math.

Re:Two things

[smooth wombat]

Had the story I submitted been posted rather than this blurb you would have been given the information you asked for. Since it's not included in the blurb that was accepted here is your answer. Here is the link to the results of the study itself. It's a .pdf document.

This is the link to the opening page which describes the methodology and other information about the study.

Way to go editors. Please don't include actual information for stories.

For those interested you can check my journal for some of the stories which were rejected to see what you've been missing.

Studies show ... repeatability is key

[JLavezzo]

Studies show that most studies are conducted in ways that can guarantee the desired results. I can think of lots of ways to ask questions that would provide enough confusion to get the answers they reported. There are also other ways to ask the questions to get the opposite answers or even more ways to ask the questions to get unbiased answers.

If this study were repeated independently I'll believe it. Otherwise, I'll presume it's as fair and balanced as cable news.

Kind of like multiple choice tests, mostly they test your ability to take tests.

Re:Studies show ... repeatability is key

[skaffen42]

Studies show that most studies are conducted in ways that can guarantee the desired results.

Mmh... maybe that is what the studies wanted to find?

Re:Studies show ... repeatability is key

[LetterRip]

[QUOTE]Studies show that most studies are conducted in ways that can guarantee the desired results. I can think of lots of ways to ask questions that would provide enough confusion to get the answers they reported. There are also other ways to ask the questions to get the opposite answers or even more ways to ask the questions to get unbiased answers.

If this study were repeated independently I'll believe it. Otherwise, I'll presume it's as fair and balanced as cable news.[/QUOTE]

Why not look up the study and see for yourself, instead of speculating? It took me all of a few seconds to find the following...

http://firstamendment.jideas.org/results/students/ studentsurvey1.php

LetterRip

And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Guncrazy]

After all, American public schools:

...Ban the display of the Confederate flag.

...ban pictures of guns.

... dissent on widely held scientific theories.

...write speech codes that severely penalize students for voicing their opinions.

...and a legion of similar examples.

If the American judiciary can't understand the First Amendment, how the hell are America's students supposed to?

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[J'raxis]

Don't forget the much-argued-over Pledge of Allegiance issues. Freedom of speech certainly means the freedom to not speak when it's something you disagree with.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[cpeterso]

Most of those schools and their curricula are controled controlled by authoritarian leftist/socialist teachers. Sure, the religious right harp about gays and abortions, but the authoritarian leftist/socialist teachers are the ones enforcing school bans on Confederate flags, pictures of guns, and speech codes. And they control our children's education. Ironically, these authoritarian leftist/socialist teachers are being used by the authoritarian conservatives (religious or not) to keep our children fat, stupid, and anti-freedom.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang on a sec -- "dissent on widely held scientific theories"? That's kinda funny, because it's a bad thing when they get all control-freakish over other areas of thought, but it would be a good thing if they only pushed the official party line for science. So I'm taking it that banning this and controlling that is good, so long as you are banning and controlling the right things, yeah? So "ban pictures of guns" => bad, but -- let's see here -- "ban display of ten commandments" => good, right?

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[GigsVT]

You are absolutely right. The authoritarian leftist has a tight grip on the schools, and I think that helps drive the more whacko right to try to push their way into the mess as a strong reaction of "fighting fire with fire".

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[FreeUser]

That's kinda funny, because it's a bad thing when they get all control-freakish over other areas of thought, but it would be a good thing if they only pushed the official party line for science.

No. It's bad when they present non-scientific hypothesis (such as creationism/intelligent design) as "scientific theories" when in fact they are anything but scientific.

It's one thing to say "There are two prevailing views on how we came to be here. One is religious, and you'll learn about it on Sundays in Church, and the other is the scientific theory of evolution, which you'll learn about in this science class." (an appropriate disclaimer prior to teaching students about the theory of evolution) and presenting creationist psuedo-science that fails the basic test of falsifiability and the most basic definitions of science on an even footing with the theory of evolution, when one is a philosophical hypothesis that is not scientific, and the other is science.

If you want religious education in school, go to a religious school (the country's lousy with them), but keep your religious dogma and pseudo-science out of our public, secular schools.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Ban the display of the Confederate flag.

They also don't look kindly on people writing "I HATE NIGGERS" on things. It's the same thing.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[AK Marc]

"ban display of ten commandments"

Why is it that the people that always complain about "religious freedom" only complain about their religion? Why not try to get a few verses of the Koran painted up on the walls of the elementary school? How about some good philosophy which the religious fanatics claim is a religion of its own? "God is dead."

No, they just see "religious freedom" as the freedom for them to push their religion on others, not the freedom for others to practice what they believe.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[pyro101]

Actually kids are allowed not to speak the guy sued to change the words to what he liked not to what the people voted on. Once again freedom of speech doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you, just that they government can't force you to agree with it.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Brandybuck]

Actually no student is required to say the Pledge of Allegiance. There's not a problem there. The problem is that some people get too offended when other people's children say the word "God" in a classroom.

And that's the core of why kids don't understand about freedom of speech: the left (yes, the left) has taught them all the way from their Headstart preschool that they are not allowed to say anything that someone else might take offense at.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether you were replying to me, or going off at a tangent based on what I said. It's not like I was complaining -- I'm not a US citizen, nor do I go to school, nor do I have children. I'm about as academically disinterested as one can be, and I'm just looking for patterns. "Ban display of ten commandments" seems like one of those things that has actually happened (as I recall) and would get a majority of thumbs up here.

So, to get back on topic, "ban ten commandments" => good: yes; no; maybe? If yes, then it's not about banning things, so much as banning the right things.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand corrected. Not only must they push the official party line of science, they must also push a slightly outmoded but still popular view of the philosophy of science. "Falsifiability" indeed. And, most importantly, they must continuously assert that anything which remotely backs up the idea that there might be a God of some sort is "unscientific", regardless of any actual basis in empirical evidence it may have. Indeed, they must rigorously avoid the question of whether the dogma (do not grace it with the term "theory", sir!) has any basis in evidence at all, as that would encourage exactly the wrong kind of critical thinking. The casting of aspersions is, after all, far harder to parry than an argument based on hard facts, and our first priority must be to keep the hearts and minds of the students on the straight and narrow of Good Science.

This isn't about Freedom (a la the First Amendment), but about imposing the right kinds of restrictions on things. Freedom of expression is all very well and good when it coincides with the ends we wish to attain, but we must emphasise the old saw about "shouting fire in a crowded theater" (in spirit, at least) when it does not.

I'm not a US citizen -- what you decide to do with your schools is purely of academic interest to me, but may you be modded up to "+5, Visionary" for your ideals.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your rephrasing of the issue into authoritarian/libertarian rather than left/right is refreshing. However, I'm not sure that the wider public will ever view the question in terms other than "which set of restrictions ought we to impose on public schools?" That is, I think they're pretty much stuck in an entirely authoritarian paradigm. This is at least partly excusable: teaching is an intrinsically authoritarian activity, to some degree. Students and teachers are not equal, by definition. Tricky stuff.

Your snipe about authoritarian conservatives aiming to "keep our children fat..." was vicious, though.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[randallpowell]

You have posted this sevaral times. Please stop repeating yourself. You sound like the Bush administration.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I am not a creationist.
Exactly how is the evolution theory falsifiable? It claims that things have happened over millions of years, a statement we have no way of testing. We have no way of testing whether the world existed anytime before the oldest person currently living on the Earth. We don't even have any way of proving that other people are conscious. We assume things like that because of the inductive reasoning and clues spread all over but we have no proof for any of that. In that light, the evolution theory is just as philosophical as anything else. And most science for that matter.
There is tons of science around us that says that something is this or something is that. Most of that is just philosophical speculation and gruesome simplification of mathematical models behind that science. In fact those mathematical models even are a philosophical speculation that happens to best match the observations. But how it really is, we can't prove or see in anyway. Example: has anyone ever seen an electron? We have some mathematical theories on its existence, and we refine them about every twenty years because the old ones happen to fail.
So, now, tell me, what you think about the evolution theory, again...
That doesn't mean that so-called "junk science" is just as good as "regular science" - all I'm saying there that we need some distance to the "regular science" as well, because recently for many people it replaced religion.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[mopomi]

I don't know about you, but when I was in school, I was "required" to say the pledge. If I tried to stay seated during the pledge, I was threatened with suspension. Whether there is a legal standing to do such a thing is not the point, the point is that the "teachers" and administrators had the kind of power over the kids that made it a requirement for the kids to say the pledge. This is especially when most people don't have the money to take on a school district in a law suit over something as "unimportant" as their childrens' rights.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[dvdeug]

Actually no student is required to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

It was never presented as an option to me, and in my years of school I never saw any dissenters. My sister has; they were threatened with being sent to the principal's office. It is not required only in the theoretical sense.

And that's the core of why kids don't understand about freedom of speech: the left (yes, the left) has taught them all the way from their Headstart preschool that they are not allowed to say anything that someone else might take offense at.

Whatever. Kids get their mouths washed out with soap or spanked for using bad language or mouthing off to their parents all the time, whether they're left or right. You say something that offends your parents or your teachers, you get in trouble.

When is saying something being honest, and when will it get you in trouble? (And in trouble, I mean fired, beaten up, or found in contempt of court; or just lose you friends or make it harder to work with a group of people you need to work with). That's a hard question for even adults. Nobody but an idiot or asshole is going to teach a kid to speak without thinking about who it will offend. "Grandma, you're ugly and your breath stinks" isn't a good thing to say, and the right realizes that as well as the left. The appropriate use of freedom of speech isn't something a preschooler can grasp, and I've never seen a parent that lean on the side of letting a child say everything instead of punishing him for saying inappropriate things.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, that hypothetical statement has one major flaw. It assumes the religion of all the students is Christianity. It's the same assumptive flaw those pushing creationism suffer from.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[J'raxis]

Right, they're not required to, and there are various court decisions to this effect, but that doesn't stop school administrators or teachers who either don't know or don't care from trying to force students to do so. If the kid's smart, it eventually lands the ACLU or some other rights organization on the school's ass and the school backs down knowing they're not going to win legally.

There's also an ongoing battle over whether the "under God" part should be in there at all.

The problem is that some people get too offended when other people's children say the word "God" in a classroom.

The whole battle over religion in school goes way to far nowadays. What needs to be prohibited on First Amendment grounds is any sort of teacher- or authority figure-led religious events (moment of silence with overt religious meaning, prayers over the intercom, religious classes). What the same people need to understand is that student groups organizing after-school Bible study or praying in class or whatever isn't the same thing.

And yeah, I know the Left has as many problems with people's rights as the Right. Hey, the Pledge was originally written by a Socialist back in the nineteenth century--they're much bigger on the whole State worship thing than the Right (except maybe all-out Fascists) ever is or was.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[J'raxis]

Organizations like the ACLU usually get involved in the legal fights over this, which I believe they do pro bono.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[FreeUser]

Disclaimer: I am not a creationist.
Exactly how is the evolution theory falsifiable?

A few examples here and many more if you do a little googling.

Evolution is trivially falsifiable. It not only requires specific facts to fall out in a particular way to hold true (so fact contradicting said expectations would in fact "falsify" or disprove the theory), but makes predictions that can be observed (or not). Evolution has been supported rather than falsified by the mountains of evidence, observation, and even experimentation (with microbes), so it is a very solid theory, but any of those observations, collections of evidence, or experiments could concievably have had a different outcome, and if that had been so, evolution would have been disproven. That makes the theory falsifiable, by definition.

Do not fall for the religious right's ploy of redefining religious assumptions as science, so they can claim that science backs religion. It is deception of the lowest kind, and something any rational, critically thinking person should see through right away. It would be amusing to watch creationists and other "junk"-science sharlatans redefinte the paramters of scientific theory to not include falsifiabilty and other fundamentals of science to be more vague, in order to sneak their patently unscientific nonsense under the radar and lend it the credibility of science, were it not proving so effective at befuddling the gullible masses.

The Christians brought us a thousand years of darkness once before, a period that only ended with the renaissance, secular enlightenment, and the birth of modern science. If we allow the kind of doublethink described above to prevail, we can probably look forward to another thousand years of darkness to follow ... or maybe more.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Jason Ford]

I do not have a problem with kids mentioning God in the classroom. I do not have a problem with prayer in school, either.

I do have a problem when public school officials, whose salaries are paid by my tax dollars, direct students to recite the pledge to "one Nation, under God." If the students want to demonstrate daily their devotion to the Deity, as Eisenhower had hoped they would in presiding over the modification of the pledge, free-speech lovers everywhere will help them to defend this necessary right. If, however, it is not the will of the students, but rather the will of the school administration or the government, I am not interested in forcing conformity on a vulnerable populace.

Actually no student is required to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

You're almost right. You left out the word "officially."

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Brandybuck]

I grew up in a "red" rural county that was decidely conservative and christian in character. We were not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance. We never hassled kids who didn't say it.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[dvdeug]

That's great, but there's clearly ancedotes to the contrary, so it's not the same way everywhere.

Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Anonymous Coward]

Things that could falsify evolution, from the link you provided, with my comments. a static fossil record; Presumably this means a fossil record other than the one we know exists. The patterns evident in the fossil record were known well prior to Darwin, and Darwin took those facts into account when he wrote about the theory. The well-known patterns in the fossil record are fixed, and therefore cannot be used to falsify evolution. Had the fossil record been otherwise, it may have dissuaded Darwin from writing, but such counterfactuals are not related to "falsification" in the scientific sense. true chimaeras; i.e. organisms which combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs); Evolution hasn't balked at the "duck-billed platypus". I think if a "true chimaera" were found, the phrase "convergent evolution" would be uttered in preference to "this disproves evolution". a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating; A mechanism that prevented mutations from accumulating in all life forms at all times in all places? A general law of non-accumulation? Yep, that would do it. Creationism could be similarly falsified with a general law of non-creation. Neither of these laws sound like they are within epistemic reach of current science, and thus don't really count as "falsification" so much as "a hurdle to falsification sufficiently high that it might as well be a protective barrier". Falsification is about vulnerability, not invulnerability. observations of organisms being created. Created by scientists in the laboratory, or by God in a live demonstration? Neither of these would disprove evolution; they would merely demonstrate the possibility of various kinds of creation. Even granting the possibility that God can create doesn't prove that life didn't evolve.

In short, particular specifics of evolutionary theory are, from time to time, falsifiable. Or rather, they are subject to enough counter-evidence that the bulk of scientific opinion is persuaded away from the theory. But the broad view of evolution -- that life arose by itself in the past and diversified into life as we know it by purely natural causes -- is a worldview that isn't subject to falsification. The only way to falsify it scientifically would be to somehow observe the past directly, and we don't have that kind of technology.

I have no reponse to your Fair and Balanced (TM) reporting about the religious right and Christians in general.

Hopefully you had better editors, in spite of that

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, kinda like how I failed to spell "sponsor".

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to include fair number media personel as not understanding either

Wake up, everyone

[melted]

TV channels ALREADY only show what government tells them to show. Did you see any injured iraqis on TV? And there are tens of thousands of them. Or did you think that "laser guided" bunker busters only blow up the bunkers?

Some newspapers exercise "self censorship" as well. This is just so fucking wrong! And flag burning should in fact be illegal, I think.

Also, do you seriously think that the government doesn't have the means to prevent certain information to get published on the Internet? Do you _seriously_ think so, poor naive lads? I mean, come on, one day you publish something and next day you wake up at Guantanamo bay handcuffed to a railing with a bag over your head.

Funny thing is, Americans sincerely believe that they enjoy the most freedoms of any country in the world. For the time being, I think, the freedom has moved to Europe and Canada. US of A aren't as shiny an ideal of freedom as they once were.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[slavemowgli]

And flag burning should in fact be illegal, I think.

Why?

Re:Wake up, everyone

[YrWrstNtmr]

TV channels ALREADY only show what government tells them to show. Did you see any injured iraqis on TV?Daily. That, and the number of American wounded/killed, all we hear about. Don't hear too much about the other stuff happening. School being opened and the like.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Gob Blesh It]

Canada I can buy. But freedom in Europe? Try wearing a Muslim headscarf to school in France. Go to Germany and try accessing content the Bundestag declares "indecent". Stop being so shrill and "wake up" to the fact that whatever it is you hold dear isn't so goddamn holy after all.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Becaue he's more concerned with the symbols of the republic that its liberties and principles?

Re:Wake up, everyone

[stevenharman]

In Soviet Russia United States...

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if flag burning should be illegal, then shouldn't flag desecration also be illegal, ala all the idiots who proudly drape theirs over anything that will hold them, don't care what condition they are in, and certainly don't light them at night even though they are outside....

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Shkuey]

Also, do you seriously think that the government doesn't have the means to prevent certain information to get published on the Internet? Do you _seriously_ think so, poor naive lads? I mean, come on, one day you publish something and next day you wake up at Guantanamo bay handcuffed to a railing with a bag over your head.

What the hell would make you think the government hauls people off to Guantanamo bay for spouting on a website?
Here are some links to (they claim) thousands of anti-bush websites. I don't think there is enough room at Guantanamo.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean preventing neo-nazism and separating the school system from the religious institutions?

Re:Wake up, everyone

[l4m3z0r]

Bum: Well, there are six schools of begging. Bad musician, messed up vet, cripple, fake cripple, religious zelot, and crazy guy. I think you would do well with crazy guy.
Homer(AKA you): Coke and Pepsi are the same thing! Wake up people! :gibberish:
Bum: Wow, now that is good crazy!

Re:Wake up, everyone

[UWC]

Complete conjecture, but the only rationalization of which I could think: the flag is a symbol of the liberties and principles of the republic, not of whoever is currently perverting, misconstruing, or undermining those liberties and principles.

Any country's flag being just an easily reproduced bit of colored stuff, though, I don't particularly see a reason to outlaw its burning. The mere fact that it's a symbol means that it symbolizes different things to different people. Regardless, though it's a potentially striking image for the newspaper or TV, I figure there are more constructive or effective ways to voice disapproval of current events, or, you know, maybe even effecting change.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[iLEZ]

Because, you should be allowed to show maimed, bleeding iraqis and american soldiers on television, but not burn certain pieces of cloth.
[/irony]

And if i may quote the words of the late Bill Hicks:

"Hey buddy, my dad died for that flag"
"Really?...I bought mine...They sell 'em in K-Mart and ****..."
"yeah..He died in Korea for that flag"
"Wow, what a coincidence. Mine was made in Korea..the world is THAT big man..."
No-one, and I repeat NO-ONE has ever died for a flag. A flag is a piece of cloth, they might have died for freedom, which, by the way, is the freedom to....Burn the.. ****ing flag you see??..Burning the flag doesn't make freedom go away, it's kinda like Free-dom ok?..ok.
And they've had 4 cases in this country's 200 year history, so it's not that big an issue. One of the hotter smokescreens they've put down the pipe. I don't wanna burn a flag, but what business is it of mine if you do?
Is it my business if someone wants to..Is it?...NO
Is it my business what other people read or watch on TV? NO IT'S NOT...THANK YOU
You see, when we talk these things through, it becomes a little clearer doesn't it? That's called logic and it'll help us all evolve and get on the ****ing spaceships and get outta here.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Procrastin8er]

So how many US citizens are currently in Guantanamo because of something they wrote? Care to share some facts with us?

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to Germany and try accessing content the Bundestag declares "indecent".

At least the government there will get you set up on a high-demand career path...

Re:Wake up, everyone

[slavemowgli]

That's just what I mean. A flag's just that - a piece of cloth that doesn't actually *mean* anything. It's a sad day when people are outraged because a particular representation of a symbol of their freedoms in a specific medium is destroyed, but not when the actual *freedoms* are being taken away.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Some newspapers exercise "self censorship" as well. This is just so fucking wrong!
Well, when you pay for your news, that's what you're going to get--something biased in favor of whatever/whomever pays the bills. Think about that.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Complain about the USA not being free while in the USA, what happens? Nothing, unless it is on Slashdot, in which case you get modded up and gain karma.

Try that in some other countries and you don't even want to know what will happen...

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, the proper way to dispose of a flag is to burn it before it becomes something less than honorable. Maybe we should only have authorized flag burning centers. Flag burning hurts no one physically and is meant to be an emotional stimulous. The fact that people want it stopped reinforces the fact that it works.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[White Roses]

You do realize that burning a flag is an approved method of decommissioning a flag that is "no longer a fitting emblem for display," right (see section 8k of the Flag Code)? Now, most people burning a flag just do it to piss off patriotic Americans. But consider, what does "fitting emblem for display" mean? Is a flag still a "fitting emblem" when it no longer represents what it once stood for (perhaps to some people)? Maybe. An arguement for a larger forum perhaps . . . .

And consider the implications of making flag burning illegal: no doubt protesters of such a law would burn more flags, resulting in legal costs, court time, and possibly imprisonment, which will all land on my desk the next time I have to pay taxes. And if we made flag burning illegal . . . what about pictures of flags? What about tearing up pictures of flags (ala Sinead - "Fight the real enemy!")?

Making flag burning illegal won't stop protesters from doing something to piss you off.

Still, I do agree that some countries have more freedoms in narrower areas. But when it comes to across-the-board freedoms, a US citizen in the US has a hell of a lot.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

"90% of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at."

You apparently don't know that you are probably the poster of the dumbest and least comical "joke/political statement" I've witnessed on Slashdot... ever. Congratulations, you fag.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[tommyServ0]

TV channels ALREADY only show what government tells them to show.

Yep. I remember ol' Rumsfeld calling up CBS demanding they show the Abu Ghraib photos.

Did you see any injured iraqis on TV?

All the time. Do you see the new schools and sewer projects on TV in Iraq on TV? Works both ways. The press sequesters themselves in their hotel and reports on the insurgent bombings and not on the good things that are happening.

Some newspapers exercise "self censorship" as well.

Everyone should exercise "self censorship." Choose your words wisely and the world is a better place. Do you tell every overweight person on the street that they are obese? Do you tell ugly people that they shouldn't breed? I hope you censor yourself and just don't blurt out whatever pops into your head.

Newspapers should also be cautious about what information they divulge. Check the facts (ahem, CBS News). And sometimes it isn't prudent to share information. For example, shortly after 9/11, President Bush landed at Offut Air Force Base. All the news stations broke in to report that "Air Force One has landed in Omaha." Come on! Not wise.

I mean, come on, one day you publish something and next day you wake up at Guantanamo bay handcuffed to a railing with a bag over your head.

Do you have an example of this, can you name someone in Guantanomo who was arrested after publishing something on the Internet? Or are you pulling a CBS and just spouting off crap because you want it to be true?

Funny thing is, Americans sincerely believe that they enjoy the most freedoms of any country in the world. For the time being, I think, the freedom has moved to Europe and Canada.

Yeah, like in Sweden--you can't build a house without using an approved design from the government (we must maintain a cookie-cutter appearance). Or if you own a car, it's against the law to change your own oil--you must pay a guy 300 bucks to do it for you. Boy, I yearn for that type of freedom.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[robocrop]

Parent is either:

- Canadian, and thus so deeply entrenched in kneejerk hatred and jealousy of the US that he takes every chance to spout anti-American vitriol or
- Self-hating American (because them's SMARTER!)

If you're not Canadian, I suggest you spend some time living there. Then come back and tell me how much "greater" freedom is in that country.

Canada is no bastion of freedom, and certainly not a country to emulate. Hell, they don't even have a national identity - beyond their dislike of the US.

People who rail against any form of curtailing of freedom simply do not understand the social contract. Not allowing you to commit murder is taking away your freedom. Not allowing you to drive without wearing a seatbelt is taking away your freedom. We exchange some freedoms for security, just as all citizens of all countries do (some voluntarily, some involuntarily).

I can guarantee you that Canada would do exactly what we have done were they bombed by terrorists. In fact, they've already started - remember who handed the US Maher Arar gift-wrapped in a bow.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[geoffspear]

The Flag Code should definitely be made a part of criminal law, with tough penalties for any violations.

I'd be happy to see the very few people who burn flags in public thrown in jail, if we do the same to all of the morons who fly tattered flags from their pickup trucks or hang them from their houses in the wrong way. It bothers me a lot more to see people who are displaying the flag to show how patriotic they are abusing and degrading it than it does to see someone using a flag burning as a protest (although, to be fair, I've never actually seen someone burning a US flag, while after 9/11 you could see an abused flag on every block).

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Hyperspac]

Some newspapers exercise "self censorship" as well. This is just so fucking wrong! And flag burning should in fact be illegal, I think.

How is making flag burning illegal anything but censorship of an unpopular view?

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the American national identity?

Canadians have an ongoing debate about what we are and we find important. Yes, there is overlap with the states. As long as there is dialogue, that's what we are. It's a strong acknowledgement of regional differences.

Though its possible that Canada could suffer a major terrorist attack, we're not a likely target because we don't have a history of meddling and manipulating foreign governments.

Someone will pay for the Arar mess! In any country there is a range of political beliefs and practice. Some segments in our government completely identify with the post 9/11 policies. Is that a surprise?

I have no hatred for Americans but am able to note differences that further anchors me to this country.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[chris_eineke]

And flag burning should in fact be illegal, I think.

Bullshit.

A flag, take any flag you want, be it Germany's, U.S.A's or Canada's, is just a piece of hand-woven coloured cloth made in China.

It is not illegal to burn a piece of cloth. But once you attach certain maeaning to it, i.e. America's freedom or Canada's cold weather, they become symbols and you change the intention of flag-burning. It's like writing Perl code to decrypt CSS: Perl itself isn't illegal, but the code breaks patents/copyright/whatever.

Medium and intent are two different things. Let's keep'em separated, shall we?

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. _I_ live in Sweden and can tell you that some of the things you mention, like building a house without permit is wrong sometimes and right other places. It depends what you are building and where.

The iol thing is BS. It's just a nice anti-Sweden myth made up by conservatives that don't like the welfare state. I changed the oil on my car two weeks ago by myself.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[LukaFox]

One of the reasons to respect the flag is that the flag is a symbol of a government that is supposed to respect certain freedoms. If flag burning is outlawed, then some of these freedoms are no longer being respected by the government, and that would be a disgrace whereas burning a flag if it were made illegal would be in the spirit of what the flag stands for and what the U.S. was founded on.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Alrighty then, The USA is not a free country.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

You may still wear a headscarf at a private school in France. At state schools however no religious symbols are allowed at all. no matter if christian or muslim or what ever.

The German Bundestag does not have the power to block any web page. It seems you have not read the EDRI article. It says, almost everyone in the parliament was against blocking. The fact they voted against the motion does not mean that blocking now is legal. They just missed a chance to clarify what is possible under the law.

the disctrict government of Düsseldorf did indeed order providers to block web sites with neo-nazi-content (you could of course still access them in the rest of germany).
It is not the opinion of the bundestag that this was the right thing to do, though.

Concerning the rest of the European Union, the article also states that the european parliament adopted a declaration against blocking.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, as a canadian, if you burnt canada's cold weather i'd be more than happy.
but then, it may be just me.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Ironsides]

For example, shortly after 9/11, President Bush landed at Offut Air Force Base. All the news stations broke in to report that "Air Force One has landed in Omaha." Come on! Not wise.

To add, don't forget that thanksgiving 2003 the press asked where Bush was. The aides responded "Iraq" and the press thought that they were joking. They actually kept that secret.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/27/sprj.irq .main/

Althought I do like this part: The White House has updated its account of an airborne conversation in which a British Airways pilot was said to have wondered into his radio if he had just seen Air Force One and was told that it was a Gulfstream 5, a much smaller plane. White House officials first said the British Airways pilot had talked with the Air Force One pilot. Bush aides now say the conversation occurred between the British Airways pilot and an air-traffic-control worker.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/200 1806972_bushturkey04.html

Re:Wake up, everyone

[stevenharman]

Yet another example of why an Edit Post option is needed. I fat-fingered the Submit button, missing the Preview step, and my mistyped mark-up ate some of my text. It intended to read:

• In Soviet Russia...
• err United States...

It's satirical, get it? Of course you don't.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Hobadee]

Flag burning can't be illegal for 2 reasons:
1. It is a demonstration of free speech, which doesn't harm anyone/thing. (It may be harsh to see your own flag being burned, but hey, live with it.)
2. Burning a flag is the respectful and proper way to dispose of an old flag. Granted, the manner in which your burning it is different, but you still can't just blanket ban flag burning.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[MightyMartian]

> We exchange some freedoms for security, just as
> all citizens of all countries do (some
> voluntarily, some involuntarily).

The Founding Fathers were very aware that tyrants would use this sort of justification to curtail freedoms. What a pity that US citizens are so ill-versed in the general history of government abuses, particularly with lovely little captions like "For the Public Good."

(For some quaint takes on this Public Good b.s. look up such charming bastions of the peaceful society as Robespierre and Mao).

Re:Wake up, everyone

[robocrop]

What's the American national identity?

Representative Democratic country. Currently leader nation. The true power behind the UN. Little things like that.

Canadians have an ongoing debate about what we are and we find important. Yes, there is overlap with the states. As long as there is dialogue, that's what we are. It's a strong acknowledgement of regional differences.

See, the problem is, you're being rational and polite. I don't have any problem with rational, polite Canadians (or similar people of any nationality).

But just like I can't do anything about Texas yahoos or headline-grabbing idiocy like the subject of this article, you can't do anything about the people in your country who are vocally anti-American. Nor can you do anything about your media which is so heavily tinged with anti-US sentiment that other content is almost invisible.

We're not talking about acknowledgement of regional differences, or measured debate, or even discussion. We're talking open mockery.

The obvious reason for this is Canada's relatively miniscule presence in world matters. I was watching Global News last night as they reported on the Iraq election (the relative success of which has many Canadians gnashing their teeth). The reporter's question to their expert panelist? "What did Canada have to do with this whole thing?". To Canadians, that was the most important thing. The answer was "Virtually nothing" (from a Canadian expert).

Though its possible that Canada could suffer a major terrorist attack, we're not a likely target because we don't have a history of meddling and manipulating foreign governments.

Well, first of all, you don't really have a history. Your country isn't even 200 years old. The US is young, but you're still our junior. Second, you're not a big enough military power or presence in the world to have this concern. It is rather interesting to me how you rely so heavily upon our military for protection but mock and ridicule our military policies.

The lack of international Canadian influence certainly isn't because of a moral superiority - we are, after all, both derived from European rule which is historically arrogant and dominant.

Your rationale reminds me of the common anti-war sentiment during WWII - "The Nazis haven't attacked us yet!". The key word there is yet.

Someone will pay for the Arar mess! In any country there is a range of political beliefs and practice. Some segments in our government completely identify with the post 9/11 policies. Is that a surprise?

Someone should pay for the Arar fiasco. But what is important is that Canadians realize the role their government had in this matter. Very few are aware of the amount of involvement Canada had, thinking the US just bullied its way in and took the guy. It's interesting how you are encouraged to demonize America to divert attention from your own problems, but that is a much more lengthy discussion.

I have no hatred for Americans but am able to note differences that further anchors me to this country.

Well there's nothing wrong with believing in your country, or loving your country. But this continued self-hating (and other-hating) nonsense of Canada being a beacon of freedom is tiresome. Canada has its ups and downs, and the US has its ups and downs.

I have no hatred for Canadians. I just wish they would learn how to navigate an intersection with a four-way stop sign.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[lgw]

The flag is a symbol of freedoms dearly bought. It's not the destruction of a piece of cloth that causes outrage, it's the blatent disrespect for what the flag stands for. Burning a flag in protest is saying "I hate America and the values America stands for" - why shouldn't that piss people off?

Symbols have meaning through common use; of course the piece of cloth means something, just as the glyphs on your screen mean something.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[robocrop]

The Founding Fathers were very aware that tyrants would use this sort of justification to curtail freedoms. What a pity that US citizens are so ill-versed in the general history of government abuses, particularly with lovely little captions like "For the Public Good."

I'm sure a teacher would give you a great grade for this sophomoric reply. But it just doesn't measure up in the real world.

Note how you conveniently ignored all given examples of giving up rights for the "greater good", to simply make your granola remark. Or do you actually believe the world would be better if we all had the "right" to rape, murder, and steal?

(For some quaint takes on this Public Good b.s. look up such charming bastions of the peaceful society as Robespierre and Mao).

For some more practical takes, try examining U.S. Penal Code.

Anyone who accepts society implicitly accepts limits upon their rights. If this truly bothers you, go live on a deserted island and pick berries.

If you want to argue specific instances of curtailment of rights that you find objectionable, that's certainly germane and reasonable. But as a general argument your position holds no water.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[keytoe]

There is no more news on TV. There is only entertainment. News has to do with dissemination of facts. Facts are often unpopular and therefore generate poor ratings. End of discussion.

Yes, the government will only make available the information it wants to. This is how governments work. We've created safeties like the FOIA to make it more transparent, but the government and the people are fundamentally at odds on this point - which is why we have a system built on checks and balances. This has absolutely nothing to do with entertainment.

Once upon a time there were people willing to dig up those unpopular and unknown facts (ie, news) and publish them in newspapers and television. Perhaps there were motivations other than profit in those industries at one point, but not any longer. This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship.

The real trouble, in my opinion, is that there is confusion at all between fact and entertainment. It is of critical importance when raising a child to teach them to figure out the difference.

Television, newspapers and magazines are for entertainment. Assuming that news has to 'come from' somewhere is an odd notion, in my mind. Where do facts come from?.

PS - Why the hell should burning some fabric be illegal? I love this country as much as the next raving patriot, but I'm not so confused to think that 'my country' is somehow actually in that flag. Now, if I burnt your flag, that'd be different...

Re:Wake up, everyone

[MightyMartian]

Penal codes go under the notion that a person's liberty cannot be revoked without due process. Society cannot simply revoke a person's liberties for notions of the "greater good", but rather only the courts through legal processes can do such a thing. Habeas corpus can be suspended during periods of insurrection or invasion, but this clearly is a limited enterprise, and not some sort of blanket excuse to run around limiting rights for the "public good".

Re:Wake up, everyone

[CharonIDRONES]

Okay, here is the simplest way to figure out if flag burning should be illegal, or legal. This is very basic mind you.

1. Freedom of expression is a right
2. Flag burning is a form of expression
3. Flag burning is protected by that right, which is why it is legal.

If you agree with #1 and #2 - You have to agree with #3. If you don't, then well, you're just stupid and wrong :).

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

For the time being, I think, the freedom has moved to Europe and Canada.

ah yes, Europe. Where they ban guns, Nazi symbols, and the ever-dangerous head scarf. Now that's what I call freedom!

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I was suggesting that the Canadian identity is wrapped up in the regional debates, but that same statement also applies to the relationship with the US. It's that continued search that implicitly acknowledges the dynamic evolution of a country. The identity is within the country. Such definitions must consider the relative wealth and power of each state.

It is this debate that reveals all the warts in the country. There is no diverting of attention. Consider the ongoing discussions on health care. (On this matter the health accord from last September surpasses the Romanow report suggestions for funding. We'll see what happens.) Elsewhere we are never too far away from the provincial differences/grievances - Quebec, Alberta, and most recently Newfoundland. With respect to the military the opposition Conservatives make it impossible to forget the dismal state of affairs. Our weaknesses are front and centre every single day, if you pay attention to current events. The self-mockery matches that directed at the US.

(Local) Newscasters in Canada are hung-up on the differences between Canada and the states, always asking what our role was or could be. It's idiotic. That said, much of my tv news comes from CBC/The National. I find that they cut through the crap pretty quickly and their panel discussions are fair/balanced. Certainly our policies are more socialist which is reflected in the media. Seventy percent vote centre or centre-left.

Canada's military is in fact miniscule as a result of the shift in policy some 35 years ago. I suspect the next decade or two will see us approach prescribed NATO spending levels. I don't think we've ever asked the US for protection, rather we passively accepted the umbrella during the cold war. 'If the Americans are willing to setup posts (without asking) in the north, why stop them?' This ties into the current missle defense proposal. Independent of the merits it would be wise for Canada to again let the US do what it wishes. -- With our budget surplus it's conceivable that when push comes to shove Canada will rapidly increase spending.

WWII is a different beast than the current situation. Canada became involved in that conflict long before the US. In the war on terrorism Canada joined the US in Afghanistan, but opted out when the leap was made to Iraq. If we are attacked it will be because of the former action, not our history.

BTW, we do spend larger percentage of our GDP on foreign aid - it's just that the US is a behemoth.

Canada as a beacon for freedoms is mostly a Slashdot phenomena. I don't detect much of it in the media. There is little discussion about the relative freedoms between Canada and the US.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[robocrop]

Penal codes go under the notion that a person's liberty cannot be revoked without due process. Society cannot simply revoke a person's liberties for notions of the "greater good", but rather only the courts through legal processes can do such a thing. Habeas corpus can be suspended during periods of insurrection or invasion, but this clearly is a limited enterprise, and not some sort of blanket excuse to run around limiting rights for the "public good".

Transparently false. What do you call being arrested and detained?

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they are saying that America no longer stands for freedom, and burning the flag is a symbolic way of pointing out the death of those freedoms.

The USA is hardly the most free country on Earth anymore.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

But did you also happen to read sections 8i and 8j of the same Flag Code? They seem to go against the first ammendment, don't they?

Re:Wake up, everyone

[Jookey]

It pisses me off too. but alot of things piss me off. That dosent mean I get to arrest people for pissing me off. I do however get to arrest people for destroying or damaging my property.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[tommyServ0]

Sorry, meant Switzerland.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Kiryat Malachi]

The government doesn't control funding for "Air America"; perhaps you are thinking of "Voice of America", which is totally different.

We don't have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The 9th Amendment weakens the idea even further. Someone can use it to argue "we have a right to security" and weaken the idea of "privacy" even more. It's...just...not....there.

Re:We don't have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a perfect example of the kind of person put forth by the Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights as a reason why the Bill of Rights should not be passed. The argument was once you started deliniating rights of the people that some would then argue those not explicitly stated would not exist. That's why they passed the 9th amendment.

Have a good day Exhibit A.

Re:We don't have the right.

[MoneyT]

He still has a legitimate point. I think what needed to be defined was the bounds of rights. You have a right to security and to be safe, but your neighbor has a right to privacy, which under the curent weight (privacy > security) means you can't conduct a spot check to ensure he isn't hoarding explosives. However, if society viewed a right to security as greater than privacy, you may just have that right.

Re:Not just studends [sic]

[JLavezzo]

He doesn't seem to.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[twiddlingbits]

Where do YOU get your news? The US Gov't does not filter anything except child porn, and even that is debatable (I think they put it out there to catch the pervs). The CDA act did NOT pass, thank goodness. I can't think of a single URL the US Gov't blocks unless it is the web site of known terrorists, you can even bet illegally via the web (offshore casinos) and make a date with a prostitue, both clearly illegal activities. Flag burning had not even been tested as a 1st Amendment isssue until about 10 yrs ago, maybe less. Folks just didn't do it. Probably 60% of Americans get thier news from the 3 main network newscasts. Talk about left wing, alarmist news which treats viewers as morons who should NOT make up thier own minds from facts. Most parents do NOT censor what the kids watch on TV (or on video..ever see what the teens rent at Blockbuster?). If you believe the data about kids watching violent TV becoming violent themselves then that sure proves someone is NOT checking on the kids. Been a LONG time since I was in college so I don't know what the teachers do. I recall my spouse taking a different view than her Am. Lit. prof and getting marked down a few years back, but I suspect that varies campus to campus and even prof to prof. I'm all for High School papers, I used to be the editor! Maybe the reason there aren't any is the kids don't want to do it? We were not even censored, and we sure had a lot of non-standard ant-administration views about lunch, classes, polcies, etc. Good Government is impossible WITHOUT free thinkers. Lack of thinking (on both sides of the aisle) is a BIG part of the problem in Congress. The only thinking is how does my state (or me) get my cut of the fiscal pie.

They probably cheated anyway.

[BigDogCH]

As a former teacher, let me just say that these studies probably are not very accurate. About 3/4 of the students just copied what they seen others had written. Also, the students who coppied generally choose the least intelligent person to copy from (I don't know why, but they do). In summary, I don't doubt that our students are this stuipid, I once tried to change them, but I do doubt that any statistic taken from school age children can be accurate. Most of them are too lazy to even breath and grow hair. As you can see, I left teaching after being disgusted with it. It is a reflection of the American culture.

Re:They probably cheated anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

FROM THE PARENT: "As a Former teacher......they just copied what they seen others had written"

What they seen? And we wonder whats wrong with our kids....

Re:They probably cheated anyway.

[BigDogCH]

Yeah, and now we know what is wrong with our adults. They are more worried about spelling and hurt feelings than content or education. Take the easy way out and critique someones spelling, rather than try to come up with any logic. The standard pathetic attempt to make yourself feel like you are not part of the problem......worry about grammar.

Oh yeah, i also typed this in about 20s, and am not worried about SPEEEELLLING!

And we wonder what is wrong with our culture.

Anonymous coward is put on the name for a reason.

Re:They probably cheated anyway.

[GenSolo]

If you claim to be a teacher in an article about education where you call your students stupid, please at least take the time to use decent spelling and grammar because otherwise we're going to blame you and your ilk for their stupidity!

Re:They probably cheated anyway.

[BigDogCH]

Firstly, I was a teacher. I left because the administration continued to let good teachers leave, and hired poor ones.

I have never had perfect grammar or spelling, and am not concerned about it. Actually, the English language is far more complex than, and less logical than any of the computer languages I have taught/used. This is a forum, not a thesis. A place to debate. When people use typos and spelling as ammo, it just shows what is wrong with the mentality of our culture.
"If I can find a spelling mistake in a teachers writing, then I am not part of the problem, I am smarter than the teacher."
Heck, I can't tell you how many times a parent has told me I was a terrible teacher because I couldn't answer one of their childs questions right away. I once had a student ask me the date that a certain president was born. Because I didn't know, I was a bad teacher. I offered to show her how to find that information, but that wasn't good enough. Our entire culture is like this. Find one flaw, and now that is the cause of all problems. I just get annoyed by this, and then also by people who go and defend these people. It just goes to show where our younger crowd learn their mentality.
Oh yeah, and I didn't sit and spell check this either.

Misleading heading

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the parts about flag burning and internet censorship show a lack of awareness of the first amendment as put into practice, the main issue of thinking that newspapers shouldn't be allowed to publish without government approval is not about a lack of awareness of the first amendment. It simply means that these students disagree with the first amendment.

So IOW...

[J'raxis]

So in other words their government-provided schooling is doing its job.

Re:So IOW...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting soccer moms in urban assault vehicles would do better?

Foolish knave.

No. These are schools that teach evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationism is only taught in a minoriry of US schools and then mostly in the southern states.

What you're seeing here is the result of white-washed revisionist history courses where the last 50 years is more important than the why's and reasonings of how the country was founded.

It's *political* free speech

[steven_h_mccown]

Granted, I went to school in the People's Republic of California, but doesn't the US 1st Ammendment refer to *political* free speech? At least that was how the 1st Ammendment was originally intended... "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Re:It's *political* free speech

[J'raxis]

What isn't covered by the First Amendment is anything lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." That's from Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]). Anything that fits these criteria is covered. Also see this Slashdot story about the federal anti-obscenity law recently being declared unconstitutional; I believe Miller is what either established or upheld it originally.

The First Amendment was also certainly meant to cover religious expression, as that's right in the text. But you really can't argue over intent anyway without committing a logical fallacy.

Re:It's *political* free speech

[steven_h_mccown]

You're right about the religious expression clause. I was simply referring to the 1st part of the Ammendment. Despite the courts, I fail to understand how anti-obscenity laws should be struck down on 1st Ammendment grounds. That's especially puzzling in light of isolated local governments seemly being allowed to censure religious expressions such Christmas manger displays... Given the era when the 1st Ammendment was passed, it seems odd that we should now turn it to mean that 'generally offensive' things should be protected and 'generally inoffensive' things may be stopped by additional laws.... What a strange world....

Re:It's *political* free speech

[geoffspear]

Local governments can not "censure" or censor manger displays.

The first amendment PROHIBITS any government from putting up such a display, as it constitutes the promotion of a specific religion. If they tried to stop you from putting one up outside your church or in your yard, they'd be violating your rights.

Re:It's *political* free speech

[steven_h_mccown]

- The US Supreme Court begins with the recitation "God save the United States and this honorable court" - Congress begins each session with a prayer - George Washington ***mandated*** a day of fasting and prayer after food was received at Valley Forge The Founders actually setup a gov't based on religious principles -- with the caveat that there be no state-sponsored religion (i.e., leading the church and the state are not the same job). That's the way it was ... and usually still is. Funny that people want not just to change it, but to revise history...

Re:It's *political* free speech

[geoffspear]

Next you're going to tell me that a bunch of deists built shrines celebrating the birth of a supposedly divine human baby. Who's the real revisionist?

just curious...

[jxyama]

but how were the questions asked? any survey like this involves inherent bias in the questioning...

asking:
can the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?

will get a vastly different answer than:
should the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?

but both question can be reported as "X% of students feel government can strict obscene material on the internet."

Funny about the FIrst Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalists get all bent out of shape when someone doesn't understand that one, but all too often they feel free to disparage the 2nd Amendment - the one that prevents the 1st from being forcefully taken from us.

Re:Funny about the FIrst Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I agree with the sentiment, in an age of Abrams tanks, stealth bombers, and nuclear arms; the second amendment is (sadly) hardly relevent anymore.

It sure as hell didn't save the South.

Obviously biased Study

[CrimsonAvenger]

From the article:

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes.

And yet, this is a country where one can get into trouble in school for advocating unpopular ideas - which suggests that the teachers and principals were not being entirely forthcoming in their own answers. An example:

Two boys were arrested for making pencil-and-crayon stick figure drawings depicting a 10-year-old classmate being stabbed and hung, police said. The children, charged with a felony, were taken from school in handcuffs.

If teachers and principals consider a drawing to be an arrestable offense (even if the drawing were in questionable taste), then it is not surprising that the First Amendment is little regarded in schools.

And if the adults are providing "the correct answer" (what they believed the questioners wanted to hear), then there is little reason to be surprised if the students did the same.

Re:Obviously biased Study

[psykocrime]

Two boys were arrested for making pencil-and-crayon stick figure drawings depicting a 10-year-old classmate being stabbed and hung, police said. The children, charged with a felony, were taken from school in handcuffs.

If teachers and principals consider a drawing to be an arrestable offense (even if the drawing were in questionable taste), then it is not surprising that the First Amendment is little regarded in schools.

I heard an interview with the Sheriff / Chief of Police / Somebody from where that happened. It seems there is more too it than just the pictures. He said there had been a pattern of the one kid (the subject of the drawings) being bullied and threatened by the other kids (the ones doing the drawing). If that's true, then in this case, the intervention that took place might turn out to be be a good thing; depending on what happens to the kids in question.

Re:Obviously biased Study

[CrimsonAvenger]

I deliberately picked a rather provocative example of the type.

Note that there was no follow-on by the kids - they didn't do anything BUT the drawing.

Note that even you agree that the kids should have been arrested for the drawing.

I consider this a disturbing picture (not the one the kids made, the one the adults drew). I also consider it unlikely that principals, in principle, approve of kids being "allowed to express unpopular views".

I continue to suspect that the principals, teachers, and students provided the answers they thought the testers wanted to hear.

Unfortunately, the students thought the testers wanted to hear what they had been taught (that unpopular ideas were forbidden), rather than what they SHOULD have been taught (that unpopular ideas are as protected as popular ones).

Re:Obviously biased Study

[Fire Dragon]

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes.

And yet, this is a country where one can get into trouble in school for advocating unpopular ideas - which suggests that the teachers and principals were not being entirely forthcoming in their own answers.

This is not very surprising, considering that teachers and principles don't consider students as people. They are just kids and the teachers have the rights to command them. On their view you need to be adult to be counted in people.

Re:Obviously biased Study

[CrimsonAvenger]

This is not very surprising, considering that teachers and principles don't consider students as people. They are just kids and the teachers have the rights to command them. On their view you need to be adult to be counted in people.

Hmmm. Quite possible. I had not considered that most teachers don't consider their students to be "people", though, in retrospect, it is obvious that many (if not most) of mine thought so (and I'm talking about the sixties here)

what do you expect

[Tsiangkun]

Good Red State American's don't want freedom . . . they want super bowls, super bowl commercials, and cold beer with a born on date. This life is supposed to suck ass, and the more it sucks the bigger the reward in heaven.

Freedom of the press, isn't that what leads to disagreements ? Can't we all just adopt the sanctioned viewpoint of our leaders, put this in the past, and look forward to all the great shopping opportunities we have available in this fine country ?

Re:what do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, there you are, Mr. Strawman.

Re:what do you expect

[MustardMan]

I'm a Blue State American trapped in a Red State, you insensitive clod!

Plus, I do want my football, beer, and lets throw some strippers in there for good measure. You don't have to be a redneck to like loosely structured violence, cheap liquor, and tig ole biddies.

Re:what do you expect

[Detritus]

The blue states are not any different, only the orthodoxies change.

Re:what do you expect

[Hobadee]

Good Red State American's don't want freedom . . . they want super bowls, super bowl commercials, and cold beer with a born on date. This life is supposed to suck ass, and the more it sucks the bigger the reward in heaven. /><br />And oh boy, what a surprise they'll get when they wind up in hell for thinking they could get into heaven by sitting on thier asses whatching football and drinking beer!

Re:what do you expect

[goodhell]

You got a "4 Interesting" for this? What else can you expect on liberal /.

You must either believe in a very sad religion or have a very skewed perception on what religion should be. "God made man." "Man is that he should have joy."

We can't help it if your team didn't make it to the Super Bowl.

'Course, you're juxtaposing that to what Blue State Americans want... High taxes, welfare for everyone, and big government.

Re:what do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats wrong with pornography and anal sex?

Re:what do you expect

[AK Marc]

Blue State Americans want... [...] big government.

Yeah, that's why Bush has increased spending (excluding defense spending, which was a war he started, but people still excuse him for it for spending numbers) faster than the Democrat he replaced. The Democrat he replaced managed to balance the budget and even generate a surplus. Had there not been a war, Bush still would have driven us further into debt. The only thing more financially irresponsible than "tax and spend" is "borrow and spend."

Re:what do you expect

[Tsiangkun]

I expected some redneck to respond in distaste to my belief and lifestyle choices.
First you attack my moderators, as if they don't know interesting when they see it. Imagine a whole world of interesting things, that you might not enjoy. Now imagine that's the reality of the world you live in.
blah blah blah, liberals, blah blah blah.
Because I am different from you,must I have the sad religion ? It's this lack of understanding of anything different than yourself that leads to kids wanting a government sanctioned news outlet.
Blah blah blah, higher taxes, social programs, big government, blah blah blah.

Re:what do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than letting your ass do the talking, how about you find the raw data and have it published in another story. K? Thanks.

PS: Raw data should allow you to tease out "red state/blue state" data - thus the talking ass crack.

Re:what do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that open-minded liberalism? Sound like a "red-stater" to me.

Do you know any Republicans?

Re:what do you expect

[goodhell]

I agree that Bush is a "No-tax-and-spend-Republican". His budget is way out of line and he needs to cut pork (Teddy Kennedy would be a good start). There are a lot of things he needs to correct.

The Democrat he replaced had some very strong Republican Senators to keep him in line as far as budget. Newt Gingrich pushed a lot of really good things through.

I also agree with your sig. It is too true here on /. That's what I love about the hypocrites here.

Re:what do you expect

[goodhell]

You said it yourself.

blah, blah, blah

Re:what do you expect

[AK Marc]

The Democrat he replaced had some very strong Republican Senators to keep him in line as far as budget.

Is that why he had to shut down the government on multiple occasions to get the Republicans to give him a balanced budget? If he'd taken the budget he was given, then he wouldn't have built up the surplus that was squandered by Jr. Instead he called their bluff when the Republicans kept demanding more money.

That's what I love about the hypocrites here.

Yeah, can't people respect those with different opinions?

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[einhverfr]

I think that US Adults *particularly in the lower classes* don;t understand the Constitutional framework of civil rights.

This is disasterous when you consider that the US Supreme Court has generally ruled that you don't inherently *have* these rights unless you assert them, so you can lose them simply through ignorance of them on an individual basis (referring to the right not to self-incriminate).

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[sydb]

Is that not about who's paying for the whole thing? If your school disagrees with what you want to publish then it's reasonable that it not pay for it to be published. I mean, take this first-amendment complaint of your's to its extreme and they could be paying for you to publish stories (true or otherwise) about how the principal likes to bum-fuck 14-year old boys.

On the other hand, if you're self-publishing then in what way can the principal wield a veto? Obviously he'll have you for defamation but that's his right!

I'm from the UK and we have a right to education here, I'm not sure how it works in the US, maybe you have some kind of contract with your school that means they can suspend or expel you if you publish something they don't like, but hey, it's in your contract and that's the American way is it not? Start another school.

in school the ist means nothing

[bird603568]

I got in trouble for telling a teacher that the reason i lost points was "bull shit" that which it was. apperently the linit os fomething @ infinety from the right is possible. But when i was writen up to the office, and talked to the principal, we were talking and some how the 1st came up. Since im on school ground its dosent apply. appernetly the 5th dosen't also because he asked what happend and i didnt answer and almost got write up for insabortination.

Re:in school the ist means nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have freedom of speech in school you idiot. After you learn to spell do some reading.

Re:in school the ist means nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Please work harder in English class. I can barely understand what you're trying to say.

No offense, I'm being serious.

Re:in school the ist means nothing

[Kiryat Malachi]

So, you were completely wrong, your teacher took points off for it, and you said "This is bullshit" and you're surprised you got in trouble?

The First Amendment guarantees your right to say things without (generally) prior restraint - it does not guarantee you will not face some sort of consequence as a result.

Similarly, the 5th guarantees you from self-incrimination in CRIMINAL proceedings. In civil cases, you don't have 5th amendment protection. Why the hell would you get it in a non-judicial proceeding?

Seriously - more attention in math class, English class, and take a course in law/civics. I promise, it will be worth it.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[_Sprocket_]

Seriously, I wonder what the results would be if this study were stretched out to include adults as well as teenagers?

It's one thing for neophytes to not understand even the basics of something. It's another thing for the experts to have the same level of ignorance.

How many Congressmen would also have a poor showing?

It's happening...

[thesatch]

Welcome to the neocon revolution.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[MasonMcD]

You can bet your bottom dollar that Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham had editorial control over what the Washington Post printed.

Use school money, school controls you. Start an independent paper, school has no control.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Publish an independant paper of course. It's not that hard. You might even elect to leave your name off of it.

Red state blue state red country

[Anonymous Coward]

85% of counties voted "red". The votes for "blue" go to major urban crime havens, border counties, and coasts mostly.

Re:Red state blue state red country

[Anonymous Coward]

But those that voted Blue happened to be those where people actually have personal experience of most of the things red-staters (counti-ers) say they fear the most... Such as racial, religious and/or sexual diversity; oh and let me not forget that it was New York and Washington DC (notorious blue-staters...) who actually experienced 9/11.

But really, it's the diversity thing: Bush promises a uniform America, and beyond that, a uniform World. Not that he can actually fulfill that promise, mind you.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[raider_red]

Why is this a troll? Several educators, not the least of the them a former teacher of the year, share this view. Just because it's a controversial idea does not mean that the poster is trolling.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[garcia]

What do psychology and sociology classes have to do with a lack of understanding of the first amendment?

High-schoolers are given the option to take sociology or psychology (or both) instead of history/civics courses.

They all fall into the same "credit" but teach completely different topics.

Obviously, it's because...

[gardyloo]

... in its original form, it was FRIST AMDENDMENT!

So don't go through the school.

[KalvinB]

What's stopping you from hosting a school paper elsewhere (like a blog) and reporting using that? You can put the fluff stuff the school wants in the official paper and then start a second paper on-line that's not bound by the administration.

The school has to CTA which is why they restrict what kind of information gets printed. It's not to keep the student's down. If you were to print taboo topics the school would have a lot of angry parents to deal with.

It doesn't matter what paper you work for, you're going to be restricted in what you can print. It had zero to do with government censorship and everything to do with keeping the readers (and their parents) happy.

Re:So don't go through the school.

[redhog]

You, and many others commenting his post forgetts one very important thing, and that is the point he tried to make - that schools are NOT teaching about your 1st amendment rights. If a school where to do that, it would mean that the students would have a similar right _within_ the school and its provided environment. That students can go outside the school environment to express their views is protected by the law, but does not _teach_ students that law, which is precisely the problem at hand.

Re:So don't go through the school.

[Anonymous Coward]

Several students were suspended for doing just that. Most of the time the suspensions are reversed without an actual lawsuit though.

Re:So don't go through the school.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is really that school papers claim to be courses in journalism, but they prohibit any real journalistic practices.

Re:So don't go through the school.

[FLEB]

Au contraire... it teaches the nuance of the First Amendment, and of free markets in general, that you have the right to free speech utilizing the resources at your disposal, but when other entities own the presses, they are in control.

That's a fundamental tenet of the First Amendment (IMO): Anyone can spout off their opinion, and the best ideas will rise to the top, while the worst ones get naturally filtered out through lack of support.

Re:So don't go through the school.

[redhog]

No. It teaches you that The Government (the government of a child's world is the teachers and to some degree, their parents) decides what you are allowed to publish and what not.

Had there been more than one school news paper, each selling its papers to the children and competing for readers, that would have teached what you say this does. And my guess is, in such a world, an article about sex would have skyrocketed the sales of the publishing paper... Take a look at real newspaper and see how this mirrors the real world. Then think again about what teaches how it really works and what teaches something different...

Re:So don't go through the school.

[Money for Nothin']

This is why I'm a fan of yours -- so few people understand the conceptual link between free markets for goods/services and free markets for ideas. :-)

Most people try to divorce the two, when in fact, they are closely-interconnected...

Re:So don't go through the school.

[FLEB]

You say that like the students don't have the right to start a competing newspaper. They do, they just have to buy, beg, or borrow the resources to make the newspaper.

The government simply is acting in the role as an "owner" in this situation. I'll agree, it's not the best arrangement. I'd say that the best arrangement would be for the school not to publish a newspaper at all, and perhaps for private interests to provide resources.

Realistically, though, that's less likely, since the school already (or at least "appearantly") has the market for newspapers basically full, and most high-schoolers don't care enough to go through the process of putting out their own paper.

This last point, I can back up... I tried putting out a parody of my school's newspaper in high school. It had one spectacularily popular issue, then died from lack of interest (and talent) from potential writers. Granted, when I look back on it now, it was a flaming pile of libelous, sophomoric crap that I hope no one ever attributes to me, but, well, I was a libelous, crappy sophomore.

You can come back and complain when the school starts censoring a privately-produced newspaper, or even a school-funded one in which the students were supposedly granted full autonomy. I'd back you up that that's an abuse.

All day

[Mark_MF-WN]

That's the smartest thing I've heard all day.

Any ideas for how to correct this situation?

Re:All day

[FCAdcock]

I agree. I would love to hear his thoughts on this issue.

University administrators and the ACLU don't get

[Anonymous Coward]

it any better than these students.
Look at "Freedom of Religon",speech codes,hostile work enviorment,sexism,racism.diversity,cultural sensitivity and the like.
Most people-especially the "educated classes" do not understand or believe in the First Amendment.
Why should we expect school children to?

Kerry is still lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry has the gall to still call Bush "irresponsible" on the budget (in regards to the defecit), when Kerry's proposed budget spent a lot more money, and would have made the defecit a lot worse.

Re:This just in: American teens ignorant, apatheti

[I_M_Noman]

This just in: American teens ignorant, apathetic

They don't know and they don't care.

(Hey, someone had to say it...)

Dead Parrots pointed this out earlier today

[sqlgeek]

They're a coalition of center-right bloggers. Smart folk -- and I'm an old fashioned lefty.

http://www.deadparrots.net/

Probably clueless about the draft, too

[ewg]

I'll bet they're clueless about Selective Service too, which is what the conscription system is called in the USA.

Somebody needs to point out to them that they are the slack in the system between US troop delpoyments and the robot soldiers.

Governments don't respect limits and freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution limits governments. And since government is who is teaching the children they will never get the full story. Do you expect teachers who are getting paid and pensions from the government to argue that government shouldn't be in the education business (or any other business for that matter)? Or to argue that property taxes which pay for their pensions and salaries are a mockery of property rights? Do we expect institutions that are all about conformity and control to teach of freedom and limits?

Government Raised Children

[DrugCheese]

Looks like our government raised children are coming along nicely.

Looks to me that we need to start making drastic changes for better now, cause we won't be getting much help from the next batch of super-sheeple.

Re:Government Raised Children

[taijirad]

The same argument could be made about previous geenrations, and yet there is still a portion of this country that seems to be able to think outside your picture of a government-mandated paradigm. Towing a line of thought taught to you in a goverment educational system isn't going to happen to everyone that walks through those doors.

Just because this study seems to suggest that teenagers today don't have a basic knoledge of the principles this country is based on doesn't neccessary mean that they're all going to grow up without the ability to think for themselves. Give them a little slice of credit, please.

Re:No. These are schools that teach evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The debate about the "evolution is a Theory" stickers was from Pennsylvania... not a southern state.

These are **kids**

[no_barcode]

For one thing, they're kids. Their primary concerns are sex, music, parties, video games, movies, being popular, etc. (I know, I use to be one.) The only time they're concerned about their freedoms is when they've been grounded. Another thing: Your average high school doesn't exactly demonstrate the first amendment very well. I'd say that high school is where I had my first real, personal experience with censorship.

Surprise surprise

[pclminion]

Surprise, surprise, this just in: young people sometimes have silly ideas.

I'm not going to flip out about this until I see a study showing that the attitudes of teenagers have been trending in this direction. Do MORE teens believe these things than they did, say, 5 years ago?

If there's no trend, just chalk it up to run-of-the-mill teenage stupidity and forget about it.

Slightly off topic, but... (free assembly)

[TrueJim]

I've been thinking about "the right to free assembly" lately. Once upon a time, when people lived within horse-riding distance of their meeting houses, it was possible to exercise this right without any technological support, but nowadays it would be almost impossible to exercise this right without access to, for example, a car. And yet states still consider driving a "privilege" rather than a "right." It seems to me that in this day and age, with access to a car essentially a prerequisite for free assembly, American's ought to have a "right" to drive, protected as a consequence of the the first amendment. In fact, I would think that in this day and age access to a car is more important than (say) access to a gun, for exercising civil disobedience in the face of totalitarianism. We ought to have a right to drive for the same reason we have a right to bear arms, it seems to me. So where do states get off still telling us that this is a "privilege" and not a right?

Demographics

[jabber01]

I would *love* to see the demographic distribution/correlation of the students surveyed, in particular Blue vs Red states, private vs public schools, political and denominational majority in their school district, as well as economic backgrounds.

School Rights

[dartmouth05]

It's not surprising that students feel that the First Amendment goes too far or that newspapers should be answerable to the Government. Student rights have been steadily curtailed since Tinker v. Des Moines ruled that children don't leave their rights at the schoolhouse gates. School children, high school students included, have a limited First Amendment priviledge and so they will likely equate this with the real world's First Amendment.

What's really scary, though, is that so much of Fourth Amendment law rests on an expectation of privacy. School children can be searched with less than probable cause (reasonable suspicion), can be ordered to give urine samples for mass suspicionless drug tests, etc. When these children enter the real world, how will their perceptions limit our privacy rights due to the lessened expectation of privacy that they have been taught is proper?

What do you expect?

[stry_cat]

What do you expect from a government run school. Of course they're going to teach the kids that the government needs to control the press. It's amazing that it's not higher than half.

Actual question and results

[Mr Guy]

From: http://firstamendment.jideas.org/survey/highschool student/highschoolstudent44-53.shtml

45. Newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story.
24% Strongly agree
27 Mildly agree
22 Mildly disagree
14 Strongly disagree
13 Don't know

I'd say the problem may be overblown by a bad question. I know how I was in high school, which isn't significantly different from how I am now. I'd have to say I disagree that media should be able to publish "freely" because there are many areas I believe the media can do significant damage by publishing "freely", whether they have the RIGHT or not.

For example, publishing CIA Agent's names, publishing misleading information during the course of a trial, publishing obscene materials, publishing troop movements, and so on. There are always lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Try the same study with college kids

[SuperKendall]

I am not at all surprised by the results, high school kids live in an opressive environment so it's no wonder they think the world is like this.

Far more interesting would be to ask people in college the same question, and see how much an open environment led them to expand expectations of freedoms.

Re:Try the same study with college kids

[rgoldste]

Remember Kohlberg's theory of moral development. HS students are in the "conventional" stage of morality, meaning roughly that what's right is what is socially approved of and what's wrong is what's disapproved of.

As they mature, they go into the "postconventional" phase, where rights are to be defended because of a social contract that all agree to.

The study is therefore not surprising to in finding HS students dismissive of minority rights and unpopular views. It would be surprising to see college students think the same way.

Re:Try the same study with college kids

[Ironsides]

Better yet, lets get a comparison of where the kids are from. But lets not stop at the Red State-Blue State level. Lets actually look at the counties. I live in VA (Red State) but Northern VA where I live is Mostly Liberal (60+% in the last election). So lets get that kind of a breakdown as well. Add in the Economics of the family and race as well.

Is this suprising?

[Eslyjah]

Most Americans don't understand the First Amendment. What percent of Americans know that the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom? What percent know that religious freedom is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment? Lots of people seem to think it's only about speech for some reason.

Re:Is this suprising?

[zippthorne]

why do we concentrate so much on the first ammendment? it's only two sentences in the whole document, there are 26 other ammendments, not to mention the articles. for instance,

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This affirms the idea put forth in the founding documents that the constitution's one and only function, much like the magna carta that preceed it, is to limit the actions of government so as not to interfere with the rights of men (mankind) as "endowed by their creator." The constitution does not create rights, as is believed by many. The rights were already there, the constitution is there to spell out what the feds may or may not do.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Everyone seems to forget about this one. This is the one that is supposed to protect us from boondoggles like national education, national crazy art subsidies, and national "welfare" (corporate or otherwise) as well as a host of other well meaning, but not federally mandated (as in: explicitly stated in the constitution) activities currently engaged in by the federal government. This is not to say that there should not be government programs doing those and other things, only that the Federal government is prohibited from doing them. Of course the freedom to act should increase as we get more local, with the people being the ultimate free actors.

From Article 1, section 9:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
As far as i know, this means that persons may not be imprisioned for an unlimited period without trial, unless there are extenuating circumstances (like a war against terrorists perhaps)

Of course, all of us here at slashdot recognize these exerpts from our founding document, right? right? (ok you people from other countries than the USA are excused, but I suspect you may be more familiar than the locals)

Re:Is this suprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can children be expected to understand the First Amendment if the Supreme Court can't?

The religious use of psychedelics is an nalienable right.

Freedom of religion and the free exercise
thereof, is the highest law in this land. That
this preeminent right can be alienated
away from us by the whims of a
conservative court is surely the
Highest of Crimes.

freeearth

Re:Is this suprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

As you point out, the 9th and 10th Amendments affirm
that the rights are ultimately retained by the people.

When states try to take them away (slavery) it
is appropriate for the nation to restore them
(Civil War and the 14th & 15th Amendments).
When the nation tries to take them away (drug laws)
it is appropriate for the states/people to restore them
(medical marijuana initiatives).

But since they can't get the 1st Amendment right,
don't expect the Supreme Court to uphold the 9th and 10th
Amendments, in Ashcroft v. Raich, either.

Wickard v. Filburn, another flawed Supreme Court decision,
should not apply, since personal use exerts no economic
effect on interstate commerce (in Wickard v. Filburn it was
held to be an indirect effect on prices-you would of had to buy it otherwise).

When a government can't obey its own laws-its a criminal government.

freeearth

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[damian cosmas]

"How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?"

You can teach them that the First Amendment means the following:

1) What it says.
2) What the Supreme Court says it means.

You can teach the kids about relevant Supreme Court decisions (Hazlewood) that affect their rights. Otherwise, you haven't really been teaching them so much as buttressing their ignorance with your own.

Lack of money for WHAT??

[de_boer_man]

From the FA:

About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.

More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.

Lack of money limits their media offerings, but they'd rather plunge a red-hot porcupine up their asses than cut a football or basketball program, even if their program is losing money.

I don't doubt that schools and students benefit from sporting programs. But what life skills are actually learned in sporting programs? Instead of cutting sports, they cut the arts, funding for computer labs, and so-called "media offerings."

Mr. Holland was right. If they quit teaching anything other than reading and writing, pretty soon the students won't have anything left to read or write about.

Re:Lack of money for WHAT??

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, the sports programs are getting cut pretty severely these days too. Anything considered non-vital is having to be cut just to keep the schools open at all.

That's not to say I support cutting of sports programs being the last thing they cut, but based on the parent post there are a lot of school administrators with red hot porcupines plunged up their asses.

Re:Lack of money for WHAT??

[esmoothie]

But what life skills are actually learned in sporting programs?

I'm willing to bet you didn't participate in sports as a child. Sports offer an abundance of life skills: discipline, team work, dedication, social skills, responsibility, etc. What about good health? It seems that schools should be encouraging athletic participation even more.

Re:Lack of money for WHAT??

[alan_dershowitz]

I've never seen a basketball program do anything but bring money into a school. When you fill up those stadiums full of fans, money comes in, and in most schools it's used. I used to hate it too, then I realized that my high school forensics team wouldn't even EXIST if it wasn't for the fact that the football games made more in revenue than the football program was allocated.

Re:Lack of money for WHAT??

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously suggesting no good artwork was created before public schools existed? In my high school experience, it was 70% teacher, 20% book, 10% everything else. Althuogh now I hear all my good teachers left because of the new state(Massachusetts) curriculum rules, not because budget cuts reduced their ability to teach.

Re:Lack of money for WHAT??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is bizarre how schools push sports in the USA. Here in Australia, competitive sport is mainly something you do after school at a local sports club, although there are usually hastily organised sporting competitions at school, which nobody watches or cares about.

Re:Lack of money for WHAT??

[AK Marc]

Athletic participation is unrelated to organized team sports. I did participate in sports as a child, and they were mostly devoid of life skills, other than learning that the strong triumph over the weak, and it is whether you win or lose.

Re:Lack of money for WHAT??

[Goose3254]

Oh yeah...you got em lining up for BLOCKS when your debate club or chess team makes it into the state finals...

News flash...sports programs bring money into school systems. Even the programs that are losing money exist as part of a structure that enable those that are making money to continue to provide a product. The fact that programs that ARE successful in garnering income are forced to subsidize the non-popular ones (football over, say, soccer in the southern US, as one example, boy's basketball over girl's basketball for another) shows that sports programs offer options to students and parents. Parents of athletes are, on average, more involved with the school than parents of non-athletes. Sports teach teamwork and foster the knowledge that rules exist and there is a punishment for breaking them. The fact that members of a team are often given special even preferential treatment is damning only to those who allow it. In my years in public school, my sports teams were held to a higher standard than the average student; you broke rules and you didn't play, you didn't make the grades you didn't play, etc etc

Of course, in my day, the parents never asked a teacher "why did you spank my child", they asked the child "what you did to deserve a spanking". The removal of the "public humiliation" tool from the teacher's arsenal seriously undermined their ability to teach.

Today's parents refuse to instill self-discipline into children and instead fill them with a rudderless ship full of self-esteem. These are kids who won't be able to understand why they can't get decent jobs with their collection of metal flesh-mutilating face apparati and tattoos on their necks. Self-discipline fosters situational awareness which spawns good citizenship...the acknowledgment that although you are unique, you are but one of many and the only people you are special to are those people you touch, emotionally, physically whatever. The only real choice you have is whether or not that "touch" is positive or negative.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Procrastin8er]

The professor would grade you on your research and your proof and not how he/she particularly felt the topic should be supported.

Unfortunately, for me, it didn't end when I was in college. Being a conservative, any proof I offered, was dismissed and ridiculed and my grades suffered in comparison.

The word "should"...

[mzwaterski]

makes this sound like it was more of a value judgement on their part than a reasoning based on what the current law was. If someone wanted to know whether they understood the first amendment, the question should have been: "Does a newspaper need government approval to print a story?"

To me, this shows that people (as indicated through their children) are tired of the media's dishonesty and sensationalism and feel that newspapers should be censored.

High School

[qbasicnewbie]

Quite frankly, as a high school student myself, I am not too surprised. Most of the kids in my school actually think that Saddam Hussein (hope I spelled that right) wanted to attack the U.S. and had WMD's to use on us. Obviously this was not the case, but when I try to point this out they tell me how much of an idiot I am and how I must be wrong. If they'll believe things like this, no wonder they have no problem with censorship

In response to a poster who said something along the lines of how certain things (his/her example was a witness protection program list) should not be published, I absolutely agree. But this question in regards to government censorship was much more simple than that. It had more to do with the government censoring things that it didn't want published for its own selfish means, not for the protection of people.

Yet somehow

[Anonymous Coward]

People who call themselves "preservers" of this important amendment are the ones tearing down nativity scenes and railing against public mention of God while making sure Muslims can say whatever they want and even going so far as to suggest it as course curriculum (see California). Remember the "prohibiting free exercise thereof" is more important than the unwritten "separation of church and state" rule that the ACLU et al hold on to while selectively applying their wrath and bias. Some seem to believe that everyone has the right from religion and any mere mention of it is an infringement of rights.

Re:Yet somehow

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that Bob Barr is a member of the ACLU? 'Tis true.

Re:Yet somehow

[maraist]

Remember the "prohibiting free exercise thereof" is more important than the unwritten "separation of church and state"

I agree that the government walks a fine line as it can't prohibit free worship. If a particular religion requires praying outside, and the only place you can do it is in a public park, then obviously there's going to be contention with the "officially sanctioned" use of public land for religious purposes. Some would argue that if a state-official happens to partake in the ritual on the public land, then they are infringing on non-member's rights. I do think, however, that this goes too far. Even the president of the United States is allowed to express bigoted opinions about the exclusive correctness of one subculture. The electing minority have hated presidents for less.

But understand the other end of the spectrum. Around the time that the US was founded, you were either for the state-church, or you were exiled / persecuted / killed. Many people who do not share the majority faith (myself included) are sensitized towards the possibility of this form of persecution coming back to haunt us. The moral-majority feels it is divine right to promote their ideals at the expense of non-believers. and often singleing out non-believers. Some even feel tremendous bigotry and are willing to take people's lives for their cause. America is full of examples where the "moral majority" persecuted individuals and groups. Secularism is a backlash from these European AND American roots.

Secularism is based on the belief that we can't trust the majority. History has shown time and again that we can't. So the United States has thus-far chosen to willfully restrict the proliferation of religious doctrine (the ultimate in justifying otherwise illegal/immoral activity). As a long enough period of time passes, and people forget their roots, they will make attempts to undo these artifical isolations. As an example, we placed "Under God" into the Pledge back in the 50's and 60's out of nationalism and anti Russianism (Communism has nothing to do with Atheism; marxism maybe). If you're Muslim, it's innappropriate to refer to God by any other name than Allah. If you're Athestic, having to say the pledge is to lie in public.

Forcing the pledge on someone is no different than forcing Jews to merely say "I accept Jesus Christ as the son of God". They may or may not care about such simple words, and may or may not be willing to die to avoid saying them. The pledge is something that allows you to state your nationalism. But part of this nation has been disagreement, so by singling out those that reject a religious ammendment to the pledge is to purposefully "exile" a minority subculture from expousing their nationalisitic pride.

The fight for secularism often has to do with government mandated institutions. If you are required by law to partake in an institution, and your local community is bigoted, then it is possible that you will be persecuted, not by the government, but indirectly through the hand of the government. Unfortunately, the most outspoken case of secularism aren't usually good examples of this, so Secularism gets a bad name.

I don't recall his name, but the man fighting to remove "Under God" from the pledge, and fighting to prevent their school for saying prayers, is a perfect example of bad publicity for the secular movement. He and his daughter aren't personally being violated in any way, except for his sense of repulsion. He's fighting for a vague principle of hypothetical oppression (the daughter doesn't even care). That unsubstantial situation is likely to do more harm, causing backlash from those that feel they are losing their sense of religion in this country. Such a situation is likely to over-compensate back towards a non-secular state. And thus, ironically, produce the sort of oppression that such secularists fight against.

In summary, Secularism and Non-Secularism are like ying-and-yang, never being rid of one another, but rather never staying in imbalance for long.

-Michael

It's all about the parenting.

[john_anderson_ii]

I think it comes down to public school atmosphere and neglected parenting.

Parenting is a full time job for both parents, and reinforcing things taught in school is one faucet of that job. Many parents, my friends included, think their kids education and well-roundedness will be the result of attending classes in school. They couldn't be more wrong. A U.S. History or U.S. Government teacher has one hour a day in which to cram a 3 hour course-required schedule to 30 students in a crammed classroom. At least that's the way it is in Arizona, one of the worst states for public schooling.

As far as the kids are concerned going to school is something that takes place when they aren't living their lives. I mean, learning is something they do in bits and spurts during a 1 hour course, and it can be thrown out the window during the after school trip to the mall with their friends.

It's really up to the parents to get involved and reinforce the ideas and priciples taught by the public school system. Only by making the student think and ponder the concept of Freedom of Speech will that concept become meaningful to the student, and they can then develop their own opinions about it. Making the student truly ponder it can be a simple dinner table discussion between the student and his or her parents and family.

Unfortunately I know too many parents who send their kids off to school so the parents can do their own thing, then send the kids off to play when the kids get home so the parents can continue to do their own thing. I wish more parents would take the education of their children farther than punishing or rewarding the kids based on the merits of their report cards.

Re:It's all about the parenting.

[khallow]

A U.S. History or U.S. Government teacher has one hour a day in which to cram a 3 hour course-required schedule to 30 students in a crammed classroom. At least that's the way it is in Arizona, one of the worst states for public schooling.

I agree with most of your post except for a couple of things. Blaming parents is the easy way out. Schools could do a lot to involve them. Second, my impression is that most public schools don't teach that fast. Ie, they could be moving maybe double the speed they normally do. Ie, that history professor is cramming maybe 30-40 minutes worth (not three hours) of lecture into an hour.

Re:It's all about the parenting.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Parenting is a full time job for both parents, and reinforcing things taught in school is one faucet of that job."

More parents should tap into that.

Couldn't resist:)

Re:It's all about the parenting.

[Shajenko42]

Thing is, both parents (and single parents) already have a full time job, and sometimes even more than that (witness the increasing number of people required to work 50+ hours a week).

You want parents to be involved with their kids? Push for economic justice, so parents don't have to work every waking hour just to feed their kids.

Re:It's all about the parenting.

[danila]

This is stupid. Instead of fighting to have the public school system work properly you reiterate the lie that it's the job of parents to teach kids. May be it's also the job of family to care for the sick? To protect the house from burglars and the neighbourhood from drug dealers? May be it's the responsibility of the kids to deliver mail and maintain roads?

Guess what - it isn't. The public schools, if they are adequately funded and forced to do the right thing, work wonders. Look at Finland, for example, or at any other country that is graded well in various international studies.

Re:It's all about the parenting.

[john_anderson_ii]

I agree with you 100%. However, until the balance of money in the U.S. is restored, if it ever is, we parents have to do what we can.

Re:It's all about the parenting.

[john_anderson_ii]

How is it a lie that it's the parents job to teach kids? I'm sorry, the resposibility for the development of the child rests soley on the shoulders on the child's parents. Public schools are just a tool at the parent's disposal.

Comments such as yours are typical of people who find it hard to accept personal responsibility for anything. I don't deny the fact that public schools can work wonders, but makes them an means to an end and the end itself. They just become a high quality tool.

Re:It's all about the parenting.

[danila]

The child does not exist for parents. He is not their property, he is not their responsilibity. The child is a future member of the society and the society should take care of him. I appreciate those parents that are willing to spend their efforts on making the child a well-read, intelligent, passionate, ethical little human, but these are and always will be in the minority.

The simple truth is that most people don't need an "advanced" child. When you argue that these parents should spend time raising that advanced child and blame them if they don't, you make a serious mistake. A funcionally illiterate moron is good enough for most breeders. It's that society that needs more from children. And so the society should be responsible for raising children the correct way, not the parents.

Re:It's all about the parenting.

[john_anderson_ii]

I cannot be polite about this and still make my point, so I feel I need to apologize for my lack of chivilary before I completely loose my temper.

First of all, for parents the only thing that does exist is the child. To say that the child doesn't exist for parents is equivical to saying the ocean doesn't exist to fishermen. The world of a parent revolves around the child. When choice is an option the house a family lives in, the car they commute in, and the day to day decisions a parent is forced to make hinges entirely on the child. Do not make the mistake of beleiving all parents are more wrapped up in themselves than their child, reguardless of your past.

Second society caring for anything that isn't under the respective nose of the individual members that compose society is a joke. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The equal reaction is the events leading up to the action. All events from a child's birth to adulthood should be placed firmly on the shoulders of the parents, without exception. Yes this method means that parents will actually have to take personal responsibility for the actions of their non-adult offspring. I'm willing to do it, because I can trust my children out of my sight. They will make informed decisions based on assertiveness, consequeses, and best practices. No school taught them that.

Where in the hell did you get the concept of an "advanced" child? I'm telling you straight out with no exceptions, the public school system is incapable of producing the level of education that is expected of individuals of society.

Society will not provide what is required no matter who is at the helm, and no matter what government actions are taken. Placing the responsibility of the transistion from self-awareness to productive member of society upon society itself is hopefull at best, futile in reality. Will "society" have a heart to heart over pasta about your daughters battle against drinking Vs. peer pressure? Will "society" step in and help you teach your son how to do the right thing even when there is no one around to observe him?

Public schools are incapable of teaching basic human skills such as honour, courage, integrity, honesty and humility. Without these base concepts, how in the hell do you express to them the importance of government, civil service, self disicpline, perserverence, and contribution.

Society is not responsibile for anything! I would like to see anybody on this planet hold, in a court of law, "society" accountable for any collective action. Yeah, not going to happen. If one cannot hold the "responsible" party accountable, how can they claim that party "responsibile" in the first place? Anything society contributes to the common good should be viewed as a gift, not a right. "Society" has no place in family. Family preserves family, it's the family that makes life work, that is the end-all-be-all. When it comes down to it, and you are the child in purgatory, no one gives a shit from Sunday about you except that family that is there for you when you need them.

Re:It's all about the parenting.

[danila]

I guess, I need to apologize too. Sorry for starting my original post with an ambiguous sentence. :) I didn't mean to say that the parents don't care about the child, I mean that the "purpose" of the child is not related to them. To paraphrase, "the child does not exist in order to satisfy any goals of the parents", although parents do have responsibilities towards the child. Hope it's clearer now.

Second society caring for anything that isn't under the respective nose of the individual members that compose society is a joke.
It isn't. I guess you were raised in the USA and I am sorry for you. My childhood was in the Soviet Union, where the Constitution said "The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all". And it was true. While I appreciate what my parents and grandparents did for me (including teaching me to read and love reading at 3), I am much more grateful to the Soviet state that provided 1st class learning facilities to every child, caring teachers, good books, study and hobby groups, sport facilities, great libraries and museums and all that basically for free. I am forever grateful for schools were being smart was something to be proud of, schools where life was not centered about who sleeps with whom, schools where noone even had an idea what drugs are. A good society is much more capable than two parents to take care of the child and raise him.

Where in the hell did you get the concept of an "advanced" child? I'm telling you straight out with no exceptions, the public school system is incapable of producing the level of education that is expected of individuals of society.

You just haven't seen good public school systems. Schools in the Soviet Union, schools in modern Finland, Denmark and many other countries are perfectly capable of providing necessary education and they do it every year. Meanwhile most parents (admit it, people like your and my parents and like yourself are the exception) can only turn their children in the pigs that they themselves are.

Society will not provide what is required no matter who is at the helm, and no matter what government actions are taken.

Again, this may be true for the USA, but this certainly wasn't true in my country.

Will "society" step in and help you teach your son how to do the right thing even when there is no one around to observe him?

It was once called "the moral code of the communism builder". And for kids it was the "pioneer's pledge". And yes, society did step in, through the actions of class leaders, mentors in pioneer camps, etc., etc. Yes, the society did teach children how to behave ethically and morally, with at least as much success as leaving it all to parents would have (and probably more).

Public schools are incapable of teaching basic human skills such as honour, courage, integrity, honesty and humility.

In the United States may be they are incapable. In my country they were perfectly capable of doing that.

Society is not responsibile for anything!

The Constitution usually outlines what the society is responsible for. I know that many people in the US have a strange aversion to such rights as the right to good education, to food, etc. (going as far as oppose the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for having several such articles). But other societies, and first of all, the Soviet society, are concerned about something (from Chapter 3: Social Development and Culture of the Constitution of the Soviet Union):

the state pursues the aim of giving citizens more and more real opportunities to apply their creative energies, abilities, and talents, and to develop their personalities in every way.

...reducing and ultimately eliminating all arduous physical labour through comprehensive mechanization and automation...
..

RTFA

[de1orean]

hmmm. maybe now "RTFA" can mean "read the first amendment"?

despite its inherent lack of profanity, i like it.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

hrmm.. RTFFA?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Mr Guy]

You're very correct and I was very wrong.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Dhalka226]

Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?

I can't speak for other states, but I can speak as somebody who has been out of an Illinois high school for a few years now.

In my particular high school, two years of history were required: One year World History, one year US History. In that mandatory US History class was a mandatory Constitution examination that had to be passed before a student could graduate. The same was true for me in 8th grade: There was a mandatory Constitution unit and a must-pass test to go with it. Additionally there were other "areas" that students had to complete courses in and although not mandatory, there were classes in Constitutional Law and Business Law. I'm sure the latter had to touch on the Constitution at least briefly; obviously the former was entirely focused on it, and I enjoyed the class thoroughly.

I'm pretty sure that the Constitution test requirement is a state law for high schools. Incidentally, I am also required to pass a Constitution test (or take a specific History class that presumably will cover it in no minor detail) for college.

Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material.

Indeed. I can understand how many students got this wrong. While it wasn't on the Internet, we've been bombarded recently with things such as the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" where it's made pretty clear that free speech rights are not absolute. I'm not surprised that students might not know where and under what circumstances these powers end. Unfortunately our laws tend to be so complicated that it seems only a lawyer can TRULY know for sure exactly what is and is not protected speech. And even then they sometimes have to prove it in court.

The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.

I'm honestly not sure what that means. How does one practice their First Amendment rights? By not getting arrested? I'll respond to your specific thought though.

Of course they don't. Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams.

I had the opposite experience. Very few of my high school teachers for ANY subject would force you to regurgitate their opinion. Sometimes they would make you pick a side (pro or con, for or against a statement, etc) but almost all of them were looking for something specific. IE, in a History class they were probably looking for any sort of historical examples to back up your point. In English the major focus was on the quality of the discourse and the strength of argument rather than searching for specific factual points. Largely, the English teachers did not even care HOW a person wrote; I find they were much less concerned with structure of the paper than my college professors have been, and instead focused on the points raised.

That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers.

This is the point I disagree with you the most about (as the others seem to be mostly a different set of experiences). We can argue whether the government or media wants free thinkers, but that's not why schools are not providing newspapers or radio stations or whatnot for their students. It's an issue of money. I imagine the newspaper would be the cheapest (television/radio stations require at least large initial investments), and there are still printing costs and such involved.

As the article stated, 40% of those schools without such programs have removed them in the last five years. The economy has not been the best the last few years so I can fully understand needing to make some cuts such as this. Additionally there are some schools, probably mostly in big urban centers, where funding is a perrenial issue and the money just can't be d

I love well-meaning but short-sighted people...

[sootman]

"Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on September 17, the date it was signed in 1787."

$ cal 9 2005

---September 2005---

S. M. Tu W. Th F. S.
-- -- -- -- 01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 --

oops...

Re:I love well-meaning but short-sighted people...

[HeghmoH]

This is just a summary of the mandate. It's entirely possible (and likely) that it includes phrasing such as "or on the next following school day...."

WTF?!!!

[Thud457]

Them thar' NASCAR guys are always a'turnin left .

They're makin' fools of you son!

Re:WTF?!!!

[Gadgetfreak]

Actually I'm serious... the driving might not be the most complicated thing out there, but I'd like to see some people here build a race car that can compete with a Nextel Cup race car.

It's very much the sport of engineering. It's just that a lot of people don't bother to look beyond the driving, and they think a car is just an engine, wheels, and some metal.

Plenty of people could accuse a sysadmin or software engineer of "sitting at a computer and clicking keys all day. How hard could that be."

I'm not saying they're rocket scientists. I'm saying that these people get paid a good sum of money to design, test, tune, and build cars, transmissions, engines, suspensions, brakes, ignition computers and all sorts of other things.

Many guys behind the walls at the races have PhDs. They play with cars and make millions. They're not as dumb as you think.

Re:WTF?!!!

[CapnGib]

Plenty of people could accuse a sysadmin or software engineer of "sitting at a computer and clicking keys all day. How hard could that be."

And if someone paid money to sit above my cubicle to actually watch me click keys all day?

Re:WTF?!!!

[bcattwoo]

And if someone paid money to sit above my cubicle to actually watch me click keys all day?

Ha, so true. For the all the engineering and such behind the cars, watching the event entails nothing more than watching the cars go in a circle. And of course waiting for the inevitable crash, "Hoooeee! Look at dem cars crash 'gether, Ma!"

Re:WTF?!!!

[randallpowell]

It's very much the sport of engineering

NASCAR, SCCA, et al aren't true sports as they are competition of skill (driving) and technology (cars). Racers need high cognitive ability to calculate their turns based on their speed and accurately predict how the next car, mere inches or less, next to them may behave. The engineers and tchnicians have to maintain a car that can out perform most if not all sports cars on the market (think F1) and have it perform each and every time then quickly fix it if anything goes wrong. It's all skill, baby.

I am not a NASCAR fan but that is what I get from it as many in my family are huge fans of it.

In other news . . .

[Captoo]

53% of U.S. kids were unable to read the results of the study. Of those that could read it, 76% had trouble with the concept of percentages and 62% were confused by the presence of punctuation marks.

Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

So its wrong for High School Students to say what they feel (They can say that they feel about those topics because they are protected by what?)
Due to the sign of the times. The media feels that the goverment is governing the press more than they should. So that is their freedom to say that HS students dont understand something, when they cant really say that is true.

So yeah, this is more of a Blurb than its anything. Irony at its best.

But the way I see it.. nothing here is diffrent than it has ever been. Topics that go ignored ect...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down...

Kids are naive and too a point thats good. I don't think 8 year olds should work out they can say anything they want and look at anything on the internet. Everyone breaks out of this mold at some time and things for them selves. We have to learn in a somewhat of an ideal environment before dealing with the crazy real world.

Its like how when we learn about physics, friction is always neglible. problems are too bloody hard otherwise.

BWAH-AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!

[saudadelinux]

I choose to interpret this as (hopefully) students are smarter than we give them credit for.

Sorry. Not.

Re:BWAH-AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. This (grandparent) from a guy who calls himself "Reality Master 101". "Irony Master 000", more like it.

Supreme Court Judges...

[podperson]

...don't seem to be exactly unambiguous on the First Amendment. (You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, right? Unless there is a fire. Who decides when you're in some sense yelling "fire" and whether there is on?) And don't even start on the second...

I'd expect you would get pretty poor results if you asked 100,000 kids to list the planets of the solar system in order out from the Sun or the chemical composition of salt -- expecting better on something as hazy as a constitutional amendment is silly.

Re:Supreme Court Judges...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, right?

Based on the theory that fire practices are a danger to the public.

Surprising number..

[Ancil]

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views.. 99 percent of school principals said yes.

What the hell..? Is this the same principal who expelled that kid for wearing a Pepsi t-shirt on Coke day?

Yawn

[devphaeton]

U.S. Kids:

1) are 40% illiterate, of the 60 that are literate, few progress past a third grade level.

2) rarely progress past seventh grade math levels

3) cannot find their own state on a map of the U.S.

4) cannot find the U.S. on a map of the world

5) ???

6) Profit!!! ....it goes on and on... every year you read more stuff like this.

So the United States is a Legion Of Dumbfucks And Ignoramuses.

Sorry.

Re:Yawn

[$criptah]

What kids are you talking about? There are plenty of schools that do fairly well when it comes to education. My high school has a high graduation and AP rates along with college acceptance... Many of my friends took college math by the time they were seniors. FYI, this was a public school.

Do you really believe that other countries have better education systems? I got a bulk of my education in Europe and I am willing to bet that a normal American school (read a school that is not located in the middle of a ghetto) can be compared to a normal school in European countries. Private schools are on a fairly equal level as well. In the United States I had a choice between progessing beyond the seventh grade level of math or doing something else; I chose the former. Overseas, I had no choice, but I was able to hack through because I had brains. Kids who could not keep up simply cheated -- sometimes with teacher's assistance -- in order to look good among the others. I do not know what is better.

Are you talking about schools in rural areas or underfunded establishments in innder cities? If you dare, travel around the world and see how underfunded schools there compared to poor schools here. You will be surprised. I believe that you have to clarify your comments; otherwise, you sound like a jerk.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

No, sorry, I think there's absolutely no comparison between the average high school education Americans receive and what other kids (not just in Europe but a lot of *third world* countries as well).

Just look at the differences in curriculum. I was a high school nerd in the US, skipped a grade in math and science and taking AP classes.

I did a year in a 3rd world country (I was told the system compied the French curriculum), and saw stuff that I never saw in college (philosophy in the 10th grade? Organic Chemistry in the 9th grade?). My first all nighters in my life were in freshmen year of foreign high school because of the workload.

There are magnet schools in the US that probably do have curriculums that are on par with the rest of the world, but sadly I do think the US has some of the most lax high school-level educational standards in the world.

Re:Yawn

[$criptah]

It is funny how your brought up organic chemistry in the 9th grade. I studied that as well in the 9th grade. Not in the U.S., but abroad. Guess what, out of 30 kids in my class there were only 2 who could dig it. The rest of us got Bs just because we were nice to the teacher or because somebody knew somebody who signed paychecks. Ask me how much I remember from that fucking class... Nothing, nothing at all.

In the United States you can go wherever you want if you have skills. We had a freshman in our school, a real genius, he did not take any science classes in high school once he was done with his freshman year. He ended up taking everything in college and graduate in two and a half years. What stopped you from doing the same?

this just in

[CapnGib]

58% of slashdot redstaters fail to detect sarcasm on a message bored.

Re:this just in

[cogitolv]

I don't believe the sacasm was missed. Why does one use sarcasm? Well, it is often used to show the sillyness of a position. Sarcastically stating a silly consequence of a position suggests that one should reconsider that position. Surely it is an immature and often misleading approach to public dialog, because it doesn't suggest which part of a postition should, and should not be abandoned. The parent was suggesting by his sarcasm that there is too much blame being placed on these controversial groups. Given that some of these groups are considered by many to be very terrible, many will find the ambigous suggestion behind the sarcasm to be immature and misleading. Surely this sort of this should be pointed out on /.

Re:this just in

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if they worked with what they could had a made some good sarcasm. That was just too obvious, and it really needed some work.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it was written better, people would take it for the real thing and mod it +5 insightful.

If the original poster is reading this comment and wants to improve, try basing your stuff off of similar +5 comments and work from there.

Not suprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that most educators lean to the left, what does this say about the PC left?

Re:Not suprising

[Peyna]

The majority of professors in higher education might lean to the left; however, this survey was of high school students, and I think you might find that the majority of high school teachers lean more right than left, but I can't think of any survey to show one way or the other.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[djward]

They seem to understand the Second Amendment pretty well... The most infuriating bumper sticker I've ever seen said "The Second Amendment: America's First Freedom."

No, that would be the First article of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the First Amendment.

The selective ignorance is astonishing.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[JWW]

Hear, hear. I agree. Now if we could only get the government to keep Fox news from reporting what they want to and force them to report the correct information..... Oh wait, that's not the point you wanted to make is it?

No, its not

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so if i want to practice my first amendment rights and call my teacher an anal hore, i get a referal to the office and maybe a suspension. And yes, i believe that the government can control what is posted on the internet...

Not Surprising

[Goose3254]

Today's America is populated by people who were first told that their right to choose to wear a motorcycle helmet was vacated, they must wear one. Later they were told that they had the government had the right to control actions and force them to wear seat belts. The Patriot Act suspends much of the protections of individual. The last 150 years have slowly eroded the original intent of a loose confederation of states into a large centralized government. All this is done for the benefit of "the people" or "think of the children". The last generation or two of US children have been brainwashed into thinking the government has the individual's right at heart, when actually, at every turn, we've had choice vacated, reponsibility deferred, and information subverted in feality to agendas, both right and left.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean much to kids who get felony charges brought against them for "stick drawings depicting violent acts". "It's for the children" "remember Columbine" baaahhhh...for me, it's more "give me liberty or give me death" and "the people who would trade freedom for safety, deserve to be neither safe nor free."

flag stories..

[Savage650]

he

Here is the study

[Aqua OS X]

Well, here is the study

Future of First Amendment Report (456K) PDF

Country of origin was not taken into account with their research. That variable might be worth examining if student misconceptions were relatively low. Yet, considering the popularity of misconceptions far outweighs the possible number of students born abroad, it's not really worth examining.
Moreover, there are already sociological studies with that data... you can probably find some full-text research on Ebsco.

Re:Here is the study

[commodoresloat]

I teach a university course on freedom of expression in the US, and have consistently been appalled at this very problem. Even after a semester in the course (and we cover US Supreme Court decisions throughout the 20th century as well as a history of freedom of speech protection going back to the colonial era), it still surprises me how many people think that the limits to free expression should be far greater than they are (at least based on their final papers). I've read any number of papers calling for an all out ban on "pornography" on the internet -- this is after fairly detailed coverage of the Miller definition of obscenity, the several court decisions regarding the Communication Decency Act and its progeny, etc. I read a paper calling for criminal penalties for speech that denies the Armenian genocide. A paper calling for penalties for criticizing the draft (this was after discussing Cohen v. California; what was really odd was that the student seemed to be under the impression that a draft actually existed in 2002, since we were at war). Numerous papers about how the threat of terrorism requires restrictions on free speech (usually very vaguely argued, without any clear sense of what kind of free speech actually causes(?) terrorism). All in all, it's upsetting not only how little they know, but that even after they are given the information, they tend to cling to ideas that I would think are thoroughly refuted by the history of free speech in America.

The really sad thing is that the history of free speech tells us that free speech is not a right that was "given" to Americans by the first amendment (though of course it is enshrined there); it is a right that was won by Americans through frequent struggles, from the birth of the nation through the twenty first century, by people committed to the idea that true freedom is superior to its alternative. If people don't even know what that freedom is anymore, how can we expect them to continue that struggle?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[sulli]

Publish your own damn paper. Print it out and take it to Kinko's.

That's what my friends and I did in high school - if you take the school's money, or use the school's equipment, it should be no surprise when the school exercises editorial control.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[gardyloo]

[...]the students just left an entire page blank as a protest.

Excellent. You could also have fun a Firefox ad. :)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[madro]

In case there are any high schoolers (or parents of high schoolers) reading Slashdot, here's the FAQ from SPLC (Student Press Law Center). I worked on a newspaper in high school and despite the extreme (grade-affecting) hard work found it really rewarding.
http://splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=3

Q: Do high school students have First Amendment rights?
A: Yes. As the United States Supreme Court said in 1969, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." But the First Amendment only prohibits government officials from suppressing speech; it does not prevent school censorship at private schools. A state constitution, statute or school policy could provide private school students with free speech protections.

Q: What about the Hazelwood decision?
A: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision, gave public high school officials greater authority to censor some school-sponsored student publications if they chose to do so. But the ruling doesn't apply to publications that have been opened as "public forums for student expression." It also requires school officials to demonstrate some reasonable educational justification before they can censor anything. In addition, some states (currently Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Massachusetts) have passed laws that give students much stronger free expression protection than Hazelwood. Other states are considering such laws.

Q: What is a "public forum for student expression?"
A: A student publication is a public forum for student expression when school officials have given student editors the authority to make their own content decisions. A school can do that either through an official policy or by allowing a publication to operate with editorial independence.

Q: So if policy or practice indicates the content of my publication is determined by students, the Hazelwood decision doesn't apply to me?
A: That's right. If a student publication is a public forum for student expression, then students are entitled to stronger First Amendment protection. School officials are only allowed to censor forum publications when they can show the publication will cause a "material and substantial disruption" of school activities.

Q: What about underground or independent student publications? Are they protected from censorship?
A: Absolutely. Although public schools can establish reasonable restrictions as to the time, place and manner of distribution of underground publications, they cannot absolutely forbid their distribution on school grounds. Like school-sponsored publications that are forums, a school must show substantial disruption before they can censor an independent publication.

Q: Can a student publication be sued for libel, invasion of privacy or copyright infringement?
A: Yes, and occasionally they are. In such cases the individual reporter and the editor could be held legally responsible. Court decisions indicate that a school which does not control the content of a student publication may be protected from liability. Students need to be aware that with press freedom does come legal responsibility.

Q: Can student reporters protect confidential news sources or information?
A: Some states have "shield laws" and others have court-created privileges that protect journalists from having to reveal this kind of information. However, most states have never explicitly applied these laws to student journalists. You should check your state law before making a promise of confidentiality because once you make such a promise, the law requires you to keep it.

Q: Can I use freedom of information laws?
A: Yes. Freedom of information, or "sunshine" laws, require government agencies such as public schools to open many of their official records and

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Tackhead]

> the thing that everyone is forgetting is this: high school is not now nor has it ever been anything like "real life".
>
>witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."

Actually, in real life, governments routinely apply laws to the entire population (banning firearms, banning marijuana) due to the irresponsibility of the few. And just as in school -- when it comes down to a sense of fairness or maintaining order, our leaders also don't care who started it.

Rather than trying to make high school more like real life, we discovered it was more efficient to make real life more like high school.

Or perhaps Air America, the "airline"

[aristus]

... that was a CIA front running covert ops, recon and support ops in Laos for something like 20 years. When the libs decided to use that as the name for *their* brand of rumor-mongering (and honestly, why do radio wanks HAVE TO SHOUT ALL THE TIME?), I almost swallowed my teeth.

My kids see the irony

[redelm]

My son & daughter (both in HS) find it ruefully ironic that schools try to teach "citizenship" or "civics" while egregiously violating important human rights like free speech, practice of religion, privacy, self-incrimination, etc. Go read your local "Student Handbook" that outlines the rules & punishments. Small wonder the little darlings rebel against such hypocracy.

Unfortunately, some don't and swallow the poison whole.

Re:My kids see the irony

[ifwm]

So, oh wise one, explain how school could be run when students don't have to go. In case you are wondering, free association is a right as well.

Re:My kids see the irony

[Ironsides]

Very interesting.

I myself went to a private "alternative" high school in VA. Not going to post the link here as they have limited bandwidth. Our dresscode was "Under garments may not be showing". I carried around a pocket knife most days, the teachers knew this and sometimes asked to borrow it. We could be in rooms unsupervised, could eat anywhere we wanted to on campus and we had a shuttle where we could go to the local mall to eat without any supervision. We also called our teachers by our first name.

College was up in Connecticut at the University of Hartford A very liberal college where we even had former VP Al Gore there, in 2001/2002. I had one class with a professor that allowed us free reign with what we wrote and how we wrote (he was fairly liberal too). But as for thought and actions? Pretty much the entire school was run by the frats and kept any conservative/religious views to a minimum.

The atmospheres were pretty far apart as they go. I don't think it had anything to do with Liberal vs. Conservative, Republican vs Democrat or Religion vs. Anti-Religion (not aethies, I do know people who dislike organized religion). I think it mainly came to how people thought that things should be taught. Either A) they should have free reign (within reason) to make up their own decisions. or B) We must control everything so that they do not make the wrong decisions. Personally, I'm for (A) and have seen and read much about (B).

Re:My kids see the irony

[Tim Browse]

We also called our teachers by our first name.

I guess there's some things you can't get from book learning :-)

Re:My kids see the irony

[redelm]

Easy. Most schools run this way. Many kids, mine included, actually like school. If you don't like schools warehousing kids, I don't either. Nor am I sure that the kids can assert their civil rights, it may be up to their parents.

Re:My kids see the irony

[ifwm]

You completely dodged the question. Most schools DO NOT run that way, but in fact run on the implied threat of consequences for non-attendance. My point, which you lamely avoided, was that they won't go if there's no consequence.

And spare me that shit about most kids liking school. If it comes down to classrooms or playgrounds, you're a moron if you think the kids would prefer class.

Re:My kids see the irony

[swiftstream]

All Swedish highschools (well, gymnasiums, 10-12th grades) run this way.

So yes, it obviously is possible.

Re:My kids see the irony

[ifwm]

No offense, but what the fuck does Sweden have to do with the US?

Swedish students are culturally different from American students. They don't behave the same way, so you can't make any claims about how Sweden's would work anywhere else.

Also, you said Swedish schools "run this way" despite the fact that no "way" was discussed apart from freely coming and going. What "way" are you talking about?

Re:My kids see the irony

[swiftstream]

The 'way' I am referring to is letting the kids come and go freely. There is no punishment for missing class, apart from, say, failing the exam if you never bothered to learn the stuff. Students are allowed to come and leave campus as they like.

Re:My kids see the irony

[redelm]

There are always consequences for any action, and many inactions. The natural consequence of skipping school is reduced participation, learning, and ultimately further education. Many young people are well aware of the advantages of education (higher paying jobs) and have longer time horizons than they pretend. There are others, but truancy laws & enforcement serves to reduce the enticement these truants always flaunt. Furthermore, you appear to have missed my point that the parents may be the ones to decide about rights.

Re:My kids see the irony

[ifwm]

"Furthermore, you appear to have missed my point that the parents may be the ones to decide about rights"

No, I assumed we all knew this to be true. The fact that you don't indicates how little you know about the current system.

And since your original post was about how ironic it is that your kids see the abuse of "rights", I wonder why you don't KNOW who decides. I do.

As far as the rest of your post, you are rambling. You appear to be incapable of addressing my point, so after two attempts to get you to support your poorly thought out position, I'm calling it a conversation.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[LiENUS]

I dunno bout where you live but my girlfriend took civics today, shes in highschool in Louisiana

Washington DC

[Anonymous Coward]

Good example, the murder capitol of the world where politicians reign and all guns are illegal. It is the ultimate Democrat utopia and perfectly epitomizes their broken ideas.

Those people that voted blue just don't like all the poor they've created with their welfare state who don't want to get jobs. They see the reality of their utopia and somehow think their politicians can fix it not realizing their politicians created it.

Re:Washington DC

[randallpowell]

all guns are illegal

2nd Admendment anyone? No one can ban guns. Gun control is legal, yet stupid and doesn't work, but Democrats aren't the ones sending jobs to other nations so corporations can get tax breaks. Republicians are comunists but only for corporations.

If you didn't vote Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

You ASKED for this.

This is yet another example WHY we need to abolish Public Education ALL TOGETHER, even the universities such as IU and Community colleges such as Ivy Tech that are owned by the government. They will fill people full of lies that the constitution is not essential. All government education does is push agendas, not teach.

So next election Vote Libertarian. There might be a few people that will suffer once these programs are gone, but, Remeber what Jefferson and Franklin both said. Jefferson said: He who trades liberty for security, deserves neither and will loose both." Likewise, B. Franklin said "He who gives up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety"

BTW, yes, I am one of the few Libertarians that live in Indytucky, a redneck city in the "red state" of Indiana

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian

[Peyna]

Vote Libertarian and ensure that the divide between rich and poor grows even larger as the uneducated remain uneducated and only the already priviledged have access to education and democracy!

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

and will loose both.

Are you sure you want to get rid of public education?

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Public education should be called Government Conditioning because they don't teach how children should think, but what to think. They are being conditioned to think that the constitution is not important. They're also using it to push propaganda and FUD, and using it to pass free condoms for use after the prom, and when the couple break up th female goes on welfare, yet another unconstitutional program, and starts poping out children so she can get even more money while staying at home smoking cigarettes and watching soap operas on MY MONEY that the government takes by FORCE instead of going to work and paying for both her living expenses and using a private loan to attend a private college so she can become successful and think on her own.

Oh well, I guess that's what we get for running an unconstitutional conditioning program. With running all of these unconstitutional programs, who's to say that someone won't get the bright idea along the line of "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children" and just completely throw out the constitution. Only the republicrats will do that.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a typo, idiot, and since you are nitpicking rather than trying to debate what I had said, I take it that you agree with every point that I made.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, are you so scared that you will be no longer getting government granted money that was originally stolen from hard working Americans? Are you afraid that you not fit? Remember, the constitution only give rights, it doesn't say we should help the worthless/needy

After all it's survival of the fittest, not survival of the worthless. So are you affraid that you're worthless? If you answered yes to that question, then please kindly jump off a bridge somewhere and take yourself out of the gene pool.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

"promote the general Welfare"

Quite Likely

[JLavezzo]

But a study on studies may have been replicated by subsequent studies with a majority of studies showing that studies on studies must be replicated.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[LaCosaNostradamus]

My schooling experience up to and including high school was a vast vacuum of actual civics training. This is also why people don't know what cops can and can't do when they are detained by them. Nobody knows, so when faced with a guy with a gun, you simply tend to obey. Why wouldn't the State love this kind of thing?

I do believe there is an insidiousness to it all, in which knowledge is power, hence anyone can see that a public school system in a Republic-cum-Empire is not apt to actually educate about civics. But the faults go really deeper than that. I can see in retrospect that my teachers themselves were lousy citizens, and that passes on the same malaise.

With the advent of Fox News as an outright propaganda arm of the Republican Party, children really are under assault by anti-Republic forces in the vicious climb of the Imperial ladder. Knowledge of the US Constitution is now dangerous (which was already a well developed philosophy in the 1990s, what with people blatantly ignoring the freedom to own weapons, and the freedom from unreasonable search/seizure) ... hence, we shouldn't expect anyone to risk their relatively cushy teaching jobs to actually teach American youth about the basis of the legal system. Now we let things devolve to a popularity contest, depending on which depraved faction of retards inhabits the majority party of the Congress and the White House.

The Imperial fall is coming right on schedule. The children are apparently so signed-on to this that I consider it inevitable.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[gardyloo]

Where "fun", of course, is replaced with "run". Hopefully the slashdot editors will let that mistake slip through!

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Ironsides]

To add, there is a movie/musical called 1776 that was recently banned from public schools in my home county for the very minor thing of one of the characters saying that he "burns for his wife". This is a very liberal county by the way, (66+% by the last election returns). A couple of others I know are fairly certain that that was the excuse and the real reason was that it is too patriotic. (go figure) The school system just keeps getting more and more screwed up in this country. If I ever have any I'm gonna send them to a private school.

On a slightly related not, I sugest reading Higher Education by Sheffield Especially since you work in the public schools.

Read the *OTHER* questions...

[cfalcon]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050 131/480/nyet25301311822

"Newspapers publish without government oversight?"
Students: 51%
Teachers/Principals: 80%

Then it begins to switch:
"Musicians sing songs with offensive lyrics?"
Students: 70%
Teachers: 58%
Principals: 43%

And then it gets personal:

"Students should be able to report controversial issues without approval of school authorities?"
Students: 58%
Teachers: 39%
Principals: 25%

So, 7 percent of students picked NO to "allowed to report if our government jails an entire race of people", but YES to "we should be allowed to bitch when the principal makes detention longer".

That 7% is a large part of the problem, but maybe they will get it eventually.

The principals and teachers who swapped views like the *idea* of freedom, but don't like the little crunchy bits where it poops on *their* feet.

It's also worth pointing out that 80% of the teachers / principals is VERY signifigant- it means that 20% either believe (or don't care) that government should censor EVERYTHING. That's adults, folks, and that bothers me a bit more than "half of highschoolers don't get it".

Re:Read the *OTHER* questions...

[Lil'wombat]

Reminds me of an episode of The West Wing (or the Left Wing for you red staters) where Josh spends an entire episode recitiing a poll statistic that 67% of americans think we spend too much on foreign aid, and 59% of americans think foreign aid should be cut meaning that 8% of americans are too stupid to understand the question.

Re:Read the *OTHER* questions...

[cfalcon]

Excellent. I personally loved the fantasy president delivering an internet rant agaist the Dr. Laura standin (about the Bible, and "abominations", and whatnot).

I refer to the show as "Liberal Whitehouse" ;)

Also...

[Anonymous Coward]

eighty percent of the same group, when asked to locate the USA on a map of North America, pointed to Canada.

...when asked to find their elbows, pointed to their assholes.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[jacksonj04]

I had a similar situation entirely by accident. Back in the dim and distant past I registered a .com with my school's name and started posting all the useful information. Last year I was threatened with legal action because it "wasn't material authorised by the school". Last time I checked, it was my hosting, domain and intellectual property I was using.

Just get something which people treat as the official and definitive (like a .com) and they will believe.

Not entirely right

[Changer2002]

Well it's not as clear cut as that. If the school is funding the facilities the paper uses in order to open a forum for speech, then the school can't restrict speech based on its content. If the school is funding the facilities in order to promote a specific view then it can basically whatever it wants. It could be argued that the school is opening up a public forum, as the SC found in a case involving UVA banning religious publications. The SC held in relevant part that UVA couldn't institute a content discriminatory ban even though the funds came from the school/government. Just because it's government funded doesn't mean it can be restricted.

Re:Not entirely right

[MBraynard]

Just because it's government funded doesn't mean it can be restricted.

Actually, yes it does. There are several types of speech not protected by the first amendment. Clearly, religious expression is not one of them (as in the case you cited), but obscinity certainly is and that is the basis the principal can veto it.

Similarly, notice the restrictions that the govment puts on the public airwaves that it liscences. Contitutional, yes. Good policy? That is up for discussion.

Re:Not entirely right

[Changer2002]

Actually not always. There's the the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions that states that the government can't condition the receipt of funds on giving up a Constitutional right, including the first. Now while certain cases seem to point the other way (NEA v. Finley, Russ v. Sullivan etc) there is still the idea in those that either the government is acting as a speaker by using the funds, or the burdens are so unintrusive that they are acceptable. Maybe you're misreading me, I'm not saying that they can publish whatever they want. I'm saying that the government can't impose arbitrary or viewpoint discriminatory restrictions on speech that they fund, UNLESS the funding is for their own speech. If the article was obscene (or fighting words, or slander, or any other unprotected category), then that's one thing, but it's something that could be challenged and if was found to not be obscene then wouldn't survive First Amendment analysis (assuming the funding was seen as opening a public forum).

Re:Not entirely right

[Anonymous Cow herd]

licenses :-)

Re:Not entirely right

[MBraynard]

I have never been able to spell that word correctly.

Re:Two things

[gstoddart]

2. If the study was done correctly, and the results are accurate, is it really surprising to people that government-educated children think so "highly" of the government?

The corps is Mother.
The corps is Father.

We won the war.

This, and other lies, brought to you by the gumm'int.

For ease of reference

[Shadow Wrought]

After I submitted I realized that including the text might be make it easier to discuss. Here is Article V which deals with the amending of the Constitution:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

I got it from the Cornell Law Legal Information Insitute.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the Europeans who have been battling terrorism since the US was "battling" communism. Is it a buzzword for them too? Or are you just a political tool for punditry?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I don't recall (for example) duct tape selling out in the UK because everybody was taping up their windows.

Short and simple...

[RedVortex]

Short and simple: nothing new here. It has been like that for many years (US children not knowing basic stuff like this when almost all of the rest of the world knows it and they are not even U.S. citizens). But then again, when you listen to U.S. people, they own everything, their President is President of the world, not the US, Irak is a state of America, Russians are bad people, so are Chinese but don't say so just now, we're not ready to attack them yet and Canada is... what and where is Canada ?

I'm proud of not being a U.S. Citizen, particurlarly since the recent war against Irak and the last election... I feel sorry for most of the U.S. people.

RedVortex

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[lachlan76]

Well where does the school get the money for the newspaper from?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Kiryat Malachi]

In my old school district, proper civics courses were still around as of 2001, when my brother took them. This included a 1 semester course in American law, including constitutional law basics, and a 1 semester course in government. The teacher of the government class gave extra credit for voting (equivalent to an A on a weekly quiz, no big thing, but enough to get a few kids to do it once - since it was a course given mainly for seniors, many of them were able to vote). American History was a seperate class entirely. This is the Ann Arbor, MI, school district - while I have significant issues with what they've done to the math/science curricula since I went through the system, they taught civics (in the old sense) pretty well.

The teacher I had for it way back when left around that time, so I'm not certain they still have them, but as of 2001 they still existed.

Students?

[Xaroth]

I suppose the beauty part of this is that, I would guess, the same holds true for the adult population.

Far too many adults that I've encountered have no idea as to what these rights mean, or what their implications are. And just so you know I'm not simply spouting anecdotal evidence, I'll cite the following article:

44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims

To sum it up for the lazy, it basically means that around 44 percent of all Americans surveyed have no idea what the Bill of Rights is for, why it's important, or what the repercussions are for tampering with it. (Yes, I know what some portion of that group are informed dissenters with the Bill of Rights, but I would assert that they are a fringe minority.)

If you're an American citizen, and haven't done this already (or recently!), be sure to read the following:

US Constitution
Amendments thereof

Just reading through the first couple on the amendments list should give you a better grasp on what the whole "Bill of Rights" thing is about.

Oh, and you'll learn all sorts of crazy trivia you probably weren't aware of - like the fact that a right to a jury trial for civil cases requires the damages to be worth at least $20 (which has never been adjusted for inflation, and probably shouldn't.)

Re:Two things

[Mr. Slippery]

is it really surprising to people that government-educated children think so "highly" of the government?

Public schools are administered by local governments, not the federal one.

In the Baltimore County school system, in the 1980s, high school seniors were required to take a "Citizenship, Constitution, and Poltical Issues" class to graduate, which covered exactly this sort of issue.

I also had some of the most free-thinking people I've ever encountered as teachers there. Public school teachers are government employees, not government agents - and they're underpaid and underrespected by their employer. If public school students have positive ideas about government, they're probably not getting them from teachers!

(And when the only alternatives are religious schools or military-style academies, I'd pick a decent public school any time.)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[WhiplashII]

...half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely...

This has nothing to do with the first amendment, this has to do with perception. I actually agree - newspapers should not be allowed to published known falsehoods, for example.

...the government can restrict any indecent material...

As you point out, the government does restrict this. Child porn is illegal. Again, the kids are correct, and this is probably a good thing.

...embrace First Amendment freedoms...

In other words, once you tell them the answers that you want to hear, they can recite them to you. Now that does sound like the high school I remember...

This "research" is so skewed it is amazing it was published. Everyone knows that this is not correct! How many kids do you know personally? How many of them do not know the First Amendment? The discrepancy is not because you know special people - it is because high school students are very good at telling people what they want to hear! Why are some people so bent on proving that the government is out to get them?

Of course, having people like that is good, because it provides balance and uncovers problems occasionally. But too much of this in the news is why people do not believe global warming...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[3arwax]

I am one of those annoying parents who seeks to get things "banned" from schools. My problem is when authority figures such as teachers seek to throw use their version of "truth" as the only truth. People scream for you to have an open mind because you do not agree with them. There is a fine line between discussion and promotion. Is it right for a high school class to discuss different ways to kill people without being caught or for a computer class to teach how to break into corporate systems and just tell that there only consequences are minimal if you do it right. Unfortunately this is how sex education is now. They tell you that all you need to do is where a condom and you will be OK. That is their version of the truth but it stronly differs from many beliefs. What place does a "discussion" of oral sex have in high school? My wife had a high school teacher that was seemingly a pervert and liked to talk about such things. Now the whole homosexual agenda is being promoted. At the high school near me the school promotes a day of silence for gay repression. If you don't participate then you are mocked as a homophobe and intolerant. First Amendment only when convenient. Do you see a major problem? I do and I will do everything within my power to fight it and encourage others to help me.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, for me, it didn't end when I was in college. Being a conservative, any proof I offered, was dismissed and ridiculed and my grades suffered in comparison.

You're a liar. Conservatives don't go to college. They just go straight to the board of daddy's oil company, daddy's armaments company, or Fox News.

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

It bears mentioning that we consider it the 51st state, only it doesn't get voting rights because it's so darned blue.

Re:Entirely BS

[Dhalka226]

Just because you're mad about the election is no reason to bust out idiocy like "evil neocon overlord." I hate Bush too, but please, reign in your rhetoric.

You also happen to be wrong. A fair portion of the US population did and more disturbingly STILL DOES believe Iraq was linked to 9/11.

Examples: "41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001."

"37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."

(Source: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=50.)

They are not majorities, but they are highly significant numbers. And a majority (62%) of Americans continue to beleive Hussein was strongly linked to Al Qaida. This was as of October 21, 2004.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Shiptar]

I'd have to agree, this is not a surprise whatsoever. The kids in these schools are NOT protected by the First Amendment, and the teachers/administrators promote that view, as it makes their daily lives easier. It's the environment that we've created. For most students the first admendment doesn't exist or it has no effect on their lives, this reflects that.

ONE county

[the_skywise]

in Pennsylvania. Not the whole state.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[rekenner]

It really is things like these that make me glad that I live in a very liberal area with intelligent teachers... I'm in Journalism, and my teacher tells us to push the envelope for what can and cannot be printed. We ran an editorial that was very negative about the way the school ran the vending machines. The writer was called into the administration after it ran, and the teacher was yelled at by the principal for it. (He says he enjoyed it, actually.) However... It actually changed the way things were done.

They've been indoctrinated...

[aquarian]

...by the book-burning, Bible-bashing, fascist-police-state Radical Right, who have taken over their school boards, and infiltrated their little brains through Fox News.

What I find so disturbing is how this generation is so easily cowed.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have any rights unless you have power to enforce your own rights from government intrusion.

Or are the rights enumerated the only ones granted to us peons?

Bogus point in the article

[mdouglas]

"The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.

Students who take part in school media activities, such as student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.

About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings."

This is either uninformed or disengenuous. High school newspapers have been excluded from first ammendment protections by the Supreme Court.

http://www.fair.org/extra/9403/teaching-censorsh ip .html

Re:Bogus point in the article

[dvdeug]

This is either uninformed or disengenuous. High school newspapers have been excluded from first ammendment protections by the Supreme Court.

But that's beside the point. In fact, a high school newspaper editor getting censored by the principal is probably more likely to support the First Amendment, because they've felt the hand of authority suppress important news (and it wouldn't have been an issue if the editor hadn't thought it important news.)

Re:Bogus point in the article

[mdouglas]

That may be true, but their article doesn't acknowledge the Supreme Court case at all. I can't give CNN any credit for the nunanced point that you are making.

Re:Bogus point in the article

[dvdeug]

Still, it says

Students who take part in school media activities, such as student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.

That has nothing to do with whether or not the First Amendment applies to the school newspaper.

Very slanted interpetation there.

[Shivetya]

The problem is that the courts always overlook the word CONGRESS.

That is the key. Congress can make no law, nothing in the Constitution prevents states or their legislatures from doing it. What does it the over extension of the Federal Courts into the business of the States.

Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment. In fact it probably is more of a violation of the intent of the First to prevent the students from doing just that.

First take away their ability to practice religion. Second make them rely more on their govenment and state appointed officials. Third thing is to ban certain types of speech by law or itimidation (hate speech).

Do not read into the First what is clearly not there. The Congress already recognizes major religious holidays which would clearly be against the First but I don't see anyone crying over that.

The First was meant to protect religions from dominance by one over another, not to put them all out of the public eye.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[servognome]

That is the key. Congress can make no law, nothing in the Constitution prevents states or their legislatures from doing it. What does it the over extension of the Federal Courts into the business of the States.
The 14th amendment states No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Basically it means federal law trumps state law... sorry the south lost the civil war.
Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment. In fact it probably is more of a violation of the intent of the First to prevent the students from doing just that.
I agree. Unfortunately some law makers/judges feel that by not acting, it is implied state sponsorship, so they get annoying laws and restrictions passed.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[Aadain2001]

The problem with this is that not everyone practices the same religion, and children who are identified as "different" become the targets of ridicule and is the extreme cases violence. Allowing religion into schools creates yet another situation where kids who aren't in the majority to be singled out, which many psycologist will tell you can greatly affect them for their entire life. If a student wants to pray, they can. It's when it becomes organized and school sponsered that it becomes a problem.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[justins]

Congress can make no law, nothing in the Constitution prevents states or their legislatures from doing it. What does it the over extension of the Federal Courts into the business of the States.

How is it an "over extension" for the courts to demand that the states not infringe on the fundamental rights which are guaranteed by the constitution of the United States? (okay, answer: IT'S NOT. This isn't even a remotely controversial point of law, it was all decided a century ago or longer)

Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment. In fact it probably is more of a violation of the intent of the First to prevent the students from doing just that.

THAT is quite true. The ACLU has actually fought to protect student's free speech in that position, on constitutional grounds. (I guess maybe you knew that or you wouldn't have used it as an example) Good thing the constitution applies to ALL government, even at the municipal level. :D

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[mopomi]

Aritcle IV, Section 2:

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Therefore, the citizens of each state are entitled to the protections that the Congress of the United States provides (by legislation), or the Courts provide (by judicial review), for ALL citizens of the United States. If one state (New Hampshire, for example) wants to provide MORE privileges or immunities, it's quite welcome to, but it CAN NOT remove privileges or immunities provided for by the Constitution or the federal govt.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

There is no way to protect one faith from dominance by the other if the state has an opinion. Therefore the state cannot have an opinion on faith. This means that state functions cannot give a platform to anyone's faith or lack thereof. The idea that this would somehow put issues of faith 'out of the public eye' is false. As private citizens, we are able to exercise whatever we want, provided we do not violate someone else's rights in the process, i.e. human sacrifice or using tax dollars for faith-based purposes.

The recognition of Federal Holidays is for Federal Employees and is a practical decision, not one based on official promotion of those holidays. The Government still has people who work on those holidays.

Secondly, the rights protected by the Federal Government are not reserved to the states. Florida cannot legally violate anyone's First Amendment rights anymore than the Federal Government can. If that were the case, the Communists Party could take over a single state and make all property in that state the property of the state without violating the Constitution.

The First Amendment enshrines the principle of the 'separation of church and state'. That's the way it's historically been interpreted, because that's what the Founding Fathers meant. I have yet to see any evidence that says otherwise except for unfounded speculation by people who can't accept this fact.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[servognome]

It's when it becomes organized and school sponsered that it becomes a problem.
The problem comes in the definition of sponsored. There are easy cases where the school schedules a prayer. Then there are difficult cases where the school gives somebody a forum for speech (ie Valedictorian speeches) or kids use school grounds to gather and pray. In neither case does the school directly influence what will be said, however, the school could be seen as sponsoring the speech through inaction.
It should never be about keeping religion in or out of school, once you make that decision you've chosen a side. The problem is when people view inaction as an action in the affirmative. (ie not stopping somebody from praying over their food means the school is sponsoring the child praying) My personal belief is to err on the side of freedom and interpret the first amendment is the state should always take the stance of inaction.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[Ironsides]

Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers

Have fun reading. This is what they meant.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> The Congress already recognizes major religious holidays which would clearly be against the First but I don't see anyone crying over that.

Ah you're an eedjit, ain't cha?

"Recognizing" major religious festivals is, of course, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to passing laws saying which ones people can or cannot observe.

You're almost half right, which is to say completely confused and totally half wrong.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[dvdeug]

The problem is that the courts always overlook the word CONGRESS.

No, they look at the 14th Amendment and use that to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, as it was intended.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Read em. Why do you think I'm stating that there is no historical evidence that counters the linking of the FA with the concept of 'separation of church and state'? Unless you have some specific passage or quote from those papers that claims otherwise, posting those documents only backs up my assertion. Were you agreeing, disagreeing or trying to make some other point? I honestly can't tell.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[dvdeug]

Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment. In fact it probably is more of a violation of the intent of the First to prevent the students from doing just that.

And if the children don't want to pray, then school boards have informed them that they need to go back and rethink their decision. How does that differ from the school board mandating prayer in the first place? The day that I can honestly believe that the Marilyn Manson-loving valadicatorian would actually be permitted to lead a prayer to Satan, I might start to come around to your way of view.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[Coventry]

Sorry to step into this argument, but I Don't agree with the idea that Inaction does not imply sponsorship. Inaction does imply sponsorship.

First, a clarification - this is about the seperation of church and state, not so much freedom of speech.

Some examples:
If a school chose to ignore students do something illegal like, oh, smoking pot on campus, then I'm pretty sure people would see that as the school condoning smoking pot.

Now, your first reaction is going to be that this is an invalid comparison - after all, the freedoms of religion and speech are rights, not illegal drug use.

However, you have to agree that the school's actions in this case would be condoning the behavior!

So, lets dig further by modifying the example. In many states, the laws defines statutory rape as sex with someone under a specific age, such as 16. Thus, anyone over that age isn't breaking the law by engaging in sexual intercourse. So, if a school in such a state were to allow students over this age to engage in sexual activity on campus or during school activities, you can bet that this would be seen as condoning, if not approving underage and premarital sex.

So, by allowing a _legal_ activity to continue on school grounds or at school activities, the school would be seen as condoning something many, if not most, adults would not want condoned.

Now, once again, you may be thinking that the comparison is invalid - but is it? I don't believe so.

From a different standpoint, The whole reason that these rights are defined is because they exist to protect individuals and minorities (I am speaking in the numerical sense, not the PC sense) Rights to certain activities - in this case, the freedoms of speech and religion.
Now, if prayer at school football games and in classrooms were to be allowed, would you be happy if Jewish students were also allowed to openly pray in class?
What about Muslims? What about Buhdists? What about Cannibals? What about devil worshipers? Pagans? Wiccans? And what about any Atheists who might find the idea of other students praying to be offensive?

Of course, maybe you're now justifying your beliefs by saying that Yes, all of those and more should be allowed to pray in school! But it doesn't work that way - mainly because students usually (unless they are 18) do _not_ have the freedoms of speech and religion. Thus schools are balancing the concept of separation of church and state with the wishes of parents. The most reasonable and realistic solution is to just not allow religious pageantry, symbols and prayer in the schools.
If the students are really serious about their beliefs (whether due to their own convictions or those of their parents) - then they will still continue to follow the tenants of their religion and practice outside of school.

Some of you reading this may be thinking that my arguments are invalid, after-all, we are a Christian nation, founded by Christians, one nation under god, right? Wrong.
Read the constitution again - it says very specifically that we get the freedom of religion, not the freedom of Christianity. Some of you may think this is a silly distinction - after-all, weren't the founding fathers Christian, and doesn't our money say 'in god we trust' - well, you need to do some more research - because our money didn't always say 'in god we trust', and some of our founders were atheists...

Another way to put it - there is a reason 'God' was mentioned in the declaration and then dropped from later documents.

Anyway, that was all my long winded reasoning for why laws/policies that 'restrict' prayer in school are not on crack.

And for those who are offended, I'm not atheist, nor am I Wiccan, Muslim, Jewish or Buhdist. Am I offended that others are? No. Do I want myself or my children to feel ostracized because we aren't one of those? No. And, most importantly, have I ever been a victim of religious intolerance? Most definitely Yes. And that is what I find

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[gruhnj]

The First was meant to protect religions from dominance by one over another, not to put them all out of the public eye.

While the parent is correct in that the intent of the First was to prevent sectarian preferance, it should be noted that the number of non religious in America has greatly increased. The SCOTUS is treating atheists, infidels, and others as a seperate sect. It should also be noted that in most cases, it's Christ and his fan club against the infidel. A prime example is the various Ten Commandment cases. It should be clear that the Ten Commandments are religious; after all the first one declares a specific God. Apparently this is not as self evident or Christ and his fan club have more pressing reasons for putting them there.

Im not for activly fighting religion, Id rather it fade away peacefully and we can move on with our lives. The First amendment should do no harm to religion per se, but by the same token it should not be activly helping it remain relevant.

Its not a conspiracy against theists, its just being neutral. Many theists dont see it that way, they see it as religion hostile. If they want to see a hostile policy, they should look at themselves.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[Aadain2001]

I'm of the opinion that religion is best kept at a personal level, and such a child praying over their food at lunch does not create any problem for anyone. It's when school assemblies begin with a "moment of silence", which is just a different label for school sponsored prayer time. Back at my high school, the christian student groups would organize a prayer at the flag poll one morning a month before school time. This was not sponsored by the school nor did it accour during school time, thus it was just students practicing their right to religion. But if the administration promoted this event then it would endorsement. Basic rule of thumb: if it only allows for one sect or type of religion to practice, it is unjust. You either allow for all or for none (this is called the Lemon test from the Supreme Court). Praying at the flag poll one morning a month doesn't prevent other people from practicing a different religion or stop people from not practicing any religion at all. "Moments of silence" only allows those religions that practice prayer to participate, and thus doesn't include all religions. It may make some religious types angry, but it's protection from the mob that such laws are in place. You can practice your religion at a personal level without bothering anyone, just don't force all students to participate in your activities.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[swillden]

Allowing religion into schools creates yet another situation where kids who aren't in the majority to be singled out

I suspect that what kind of shoes or jeans kids wear is a much bigger problem than religion.

I had the chance to be a minority in both, and I know which caused bigger problems for me. Being a non-Baptist in Baptist country was much less damaging to my psyche (and physiology!) than wearing hand-me-down bell bottom jeans to Junior High in the early 80s, when jeans were supposed to have such narrow ankles that it was hard to get your foot through.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[servognome]

Now, your first reaction is going to be that this is an invalid comparison - after all, the freedoms of religion and speech are rights, not illegal drug use
Actually the comparison is invalid because the 1st amendment states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Your comparison would only work if pot smoking was legal but goverment could not promote its use.
So, by allowing a _legal_ activity to continue on school grounds or at school activities, the school would be seen as condoning something many, if not most, adults would not want condoned.
would you be happy if Jewish students were also allowed to openly pray in class? What about Muslims?
Do you believe that schools should prevent a muslim girl from wearing a headscarf? Or a jewish child wearing a yamaka? Or a christian wearing a cross? By your interpretation inaction by the school allowing them to express their religion openly is an affirmation of those religions.
A school should not be able to set aside a "prayer time" or lead a school prayer, nor should it prevent an indivdual from wearing a religious symbol or praying on their own.
You can't please everybody, any action promoting a religion is unfair, as is any action restricting a religion is unfair. That is why the 1st amendment was written such that goverment can only take the stance of inaction.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[staeiou]

The problem is that the courts always overlook the word CONGRESS. That is the key. Congress can make no law, nothing in the Constitution prevents states or their legislatures from doing it

What you seemed to overlook is the 14th amendment. After slavery was stopped and blacks were given the right to vote, some states enacted very tricky and carefully crafted laws to prohibit blacks from voting. Some just ignored the amendment, and said that blacks could vote in federal elections, but congress had no power over the states.

Thus, the 14th amendment: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as meaning that the bill of rights and amendments apply to the states as well as the feds.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The 14th Amendment specifically extends all such restrictions to the state and local levels of government. Before it was ratified, it was accepted that the Constitution only limited Federal powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendmen t_ to_the_United_States_Constitution

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[alan_dershowitz]

The fun part is deciding which right is a collective right or a citizen's right. For example, the first amendment was decided to be a citizen's right, and the second was decided to be a state's right. Equal protection therefore can be extended to freedom of speech, but not the right to bear arms.

As far as I can tell, before the civil war, the entire bill of rights was considered states rights, and therefore your constitutional rights could be restricted at the state level. And they were.

The collective right as held by the state is still recognized selectively by people. One time I was talking to a supposedly knowledgeable person from Yale, who claimed that you don't have a right to own a gun because the bill of rights are collective rights held by the states. Whereupon I said "then you don't have freedom of speech, so shut up."

Beside the very particular wording of the second amendment, the general principle that decides if a right is a collective right or an individual right seems to be what the supreme court ruled on that particular amendment. This is done in spite of the fact that there does not appear to be any legal justification for the concept of a state having a "right", but rather "powers".

As a side note, the marriage issue is kind of hairy because to my recollection, the constitution requires that marriage licenses issued in one state are valid in all states. "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state." If your state wants to block gay marriage, it becomes a federal issue, or else every gay couple can just go to new hampshire to marry and the go back home and have their state recognize it.

The Defense of Marriage Act tried to get around this by declaring that no state had to recognize another state's "definition" of marriage. Well, too bad, you still have to honor the license. A constitutional amendment is the only way around this.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[Inthewire]

All of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are individual rights.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[Phil Karn]

You're only about 137 years out of date. Read the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868 as one of the three "reconstruction amendments" after the US Civil War.

Read also how the Supreme Court applies the 14th Amendment to "incorporate" the protections of the Bill of Rights against the states as well as the federal government. Since the 14th amendment, it has been no more legal for a state to sponsor or promote religion than for the federal government.

A particularly readable book on the Bill of Rights and its interpretation is In Our Defense by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[mopomi]

Here's the best part: It's not 137 years, it's 216 years.

Aritcle IV, Section 2:

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

And,

Section 1. of Amendment XIV:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Clearly, the freedoms/immunities/privileges provided to the people (citizens) by the federal govt. were protected from the states at the signing of the Constitution. Also clearly, some states decided to ignore that part of the Constitution, and it had to be reiterated in the Constitution that they can't do that. The federal govt. has ALWAYS, under the Constitution, had the power to hold the states in check when it came to limiting the rights of the citizens of the US.

Re:Very slanted interpetation there.

[alan_dershowitz]

Your information is contrary to judicial ruling.

Editors don't understand English Comprehension

[MBraynard]

X% of students think the government should approve news stories before they are published, and X% of students think that flag burning should be illegal.

Editors wet their panties saying "THEY DONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT."

No, the amendment is irrelevant to the question the student was asked. Yes, there is an amendment that under current court jurisprudence makes both of those things the students favor unconstitutional, but that amendment, nor the jurisprudence, are absolute. Both may be over-written or abandoned at any time. In time, these students will be old enough to approve such changes to the Constitution through their representatives, or to elect such representatives who will appoint justices who do not share the current court's opinion on these matters.

And why should they? The education system today tries to ram such ideas into children's minds - 'tolerance', 'diversity', 'the First Amendment' - as though they are dogma without explaining the reasons why they are valid ideas. It grows out of a mentality in education and other academic fields that rejects reason - these students don't need to know why these concepts are valid or not.

Ironically, isn't this the result of the kind of 'critical thinking' that is suppose to be encouraged towards more conservative ideas?

Re:Editors don't understand English Comprehension

[MBraynard]

Just a quick follow-up - I know there are a bunch of grammer errors in my post, so please forgive me. I have been writing code most of the day.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't know where you went to school, but in my HS the essay writing was more like your college profs. expectations.

Their are good teachers and poor teachers in both high schools and colleges. I had a high school teacher who was quite willing to give good grades to people with opinions differing from hers, I had another try to get me kicked out of his class for not agreeing that Jesus is god is a proven fact. In college I had professors who were very open minded. I also had a public speaking teacher who gave me a barely passing grade on a persuasive essay when my topic was "legalize cannibalism." This was at a fairly conservative school and I had several people at the end of my speech agree with me and decide cannibalism should be legal. Personally, I thought that should count as very successful persuasion. He disagreed.

My point is, lousy, small minded teachers can be found in any setting.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[kria]

I graduated from high school in '95 (waves as it fades further into the past), and I had heard about a creative writing journal my high school had in the PAST which ended up canceled when the administration found on a poem in it had to do with masturbation. Could it have been that bad if they had to be told that was the subject?

We also only sort of had a newsletter - it was a xeroxed piece of crap put together by the journalism class after the year book had been sent to the printers. It had a stupid Q&A person and horoscopes in it.

Heck, I remember that I was supposed to hand in my graduation speech to be approved.... oops, did I forget to do that?

Think that's bad???

[M_Cheevy]

How many US citizens, let alone students, know about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? A document which seems to be acknowledged and recognised in almost every member country BUT the USA?

I've had a long time interest in civil rights and constitutional law but never heard of this document until I became an exile and moved from the US to New Zealand. If you read the document you can see it's actually BETTER for the citizens than the US Bill of Rights. No wonder they don't teach about it in schools!

"We must remember that a right lost to one is lost to all." - William Reece Smith, Jr.

Freedom unexercised may become freedom forfeited. - Margaret Chase Smith
(example of this, now when you ask for a lawyer to protect yourself from sloppy/lazy police work, you're assumed guilty).

Re:Think that's bad???

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Umm,
This document seems to say some things I cannot agree to. In fact 25 & 26 seem to go directly against a reasonable idea of freedom. Unless of course all the things listed in those are suddenly free.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, people can demand that someone else pay for their food/water/education. This is just anti-liberty (In a libertarian sense)

Re:Think that's bad???

[gmcraff]

It's not a bad document, really, until you get to Article 23 through 26. Then I started leading the forced labor subtexts:

• Owners of companies are compelled, possibly against their will, to pay you while you enjoy yourself, otherwise they're violating your rights.
• Someone is compelled to employ you, possibly against their will, otherwise they're violating your rights.
• Someone with medical training is compelled, possibly against their will and without pay, to treat you, otherwise they're violating your rights.
• If you can't or won't provide for your own housing, someone will be compelled to house you, possibly against their will and without pay, otherwise they're violating your rights.
• If you can't or won't provide for your own sustainence, someone will be compelled to feed you, possibly against their will and without pay, otherwise they're violating your rights.
• If you can't or won't provide for your own clothes, someone will be compelled to clothe you, possibly against their will and without pay, otherwise they're violating your rights.
• Someone with knowledge is compelled, possibly against their will and without pay, to teach you, otherwise they're violating your rights.

Here's some rights that are missing:

• Everyone is entitled to be reasonably compensated for their labors.
• Everyone is entitled, as a collective body, to establish a government, assign it specified powers, to remove assigned powers, and to select those that will exercise those government powers. [You can even set up a king if you want, but you don't lose the right to take him down again.]

Re:Think that's bad???

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, people can demand that someone else pay for their food/water/education. This is just anti-liberty (In a libertarian sense)

Quick questions then: is it a libertarian position that permanently-disabled who cant work die from starvation or thirst? Perheaps it is "libertarian" to allow children from families who are too poor to fund their education to stay un-educated and poor as it were the child's choice where to get born? If the answer to any of these is yes, then you and I sir will be mortal enemies, me on the side of all what is humane and just and you on the side of Universal And Supreme Selfish Greed Above All.

Re:Think that's bad???

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I'm not a Libertarian, but I'm familiar with the platform. The ubersummary is that they believe individual freedom trumps almost all, and government should be extremely limited in power.

They advocate extremely fiscally conservative government policies that limit government scope to national security, some interstate commerce issues, and, well that's about it.

is it a libertarian position that permanently-disabled who cant work die from starvation or thirst? Perheaps it is "libertarian" to allow children from families who are too poor to fund their education to stay un-educated and poor as it were the child's choice where to get born?

No. Not at all. The libertarian perspective would be that secular or theist charities should support those who can not support themselves. "Not the government's job (but someone else should do it)" is their mantra.

If the answer to any of these is yes, then you and I sir will be mortal enemies, me on the side of all what is humane and just and you on the side of Universal And Supreme Selfish Greed Above All.

Ah. I think I've seen your posts before. Why are you usually so caustic in discussions? There's no need for that.

Re:Think that's bad???

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Then so shall it be!(I'm kidding)
There is a difference between being humane, and government/UN mandated wealth re-assignment. I am in favor of chairty and helping people. In fact I'm glad charity has been there. It's just the idea of being forced.
Lets say you have cash, and some other people do not.
Now lets say that you worked fairly hard for your cash. (I know not everyone does)
Now lets say I'm awfully lazy, and instead of doing anything to help myself.
Now you are violating my rights when you refuse to pay for me, no?
If it is a basic human right, it dosen't just extend to the permantly-disabled. I deserve free food. If there are exepctions it isn't a basic human right. Greed may not be good, but IMHO socalism is just as bad as any invasion of privacy.
Everyone wants to help people (I hope), So I don't want to cast my vote on the side of greed just yet, But the government is just not (in my opinion, which is no more valid than yours) the right vector for accomplishing this.

Re:Think that's bad???

[M_Cheevy]

I could address these bullet point by bullet point, even though most of them constitute arguments which are reductio ad absurdam and as such hardly warrant it. However, I do have to point out some basic erroneous assumptions you've made:

This document spells out the rights citizens have to expect from their Governments. Granted, it can apply to the individual. For example, the right to food, housing etc "in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability....": if you attempt to prevent a disabled person from going to a food bank without legal reason and due process, that you have violated the rights of the person seeking assistance. There is no obligation on the individual to provide food, housing, etc.

Your comment regarding access to medical care flies completely in the face of an oath every physician is expected to keep, the Hippocratic Oath. You might want to take a look at it.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, [...] be they free or slaves.

Your arguments regarding access to education is a complete mistatement of the act. It clearly stipulates that governments have a responsibility to provide elementary education. Technical and professional education access should equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

I have to say your last two points seem to indicate you are familiar with Rousseau's Social Contract but you seem to want to exempt the government from its responsibilities under that contract and dump them instead on the individual.

To boil it down, replace "someone" in your objections with "the government through the use of collected tax revenues" and your whole argument deflates. And before we start with the "tax and spend" criticism. Who should get the aid more, the disabled and infirm or Halliburton and ADM? The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is WHO they give the money to. Personally, I think the people deserve to get their money back more than some lifeless, bloodless corporation.

Re:Think that's bad???

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I am in favor of chairty and helping people. In fact I'm glad charity has been there. It's just the idea of being forced.

Trouble is that charity is woefully insufficient and unreliable. If it were up to charity, stuff like: 40% of people in the US having no medical care and 1/3 of world population being starving or malnutrished would be true! ... oh wait....

Lets say you have cash, and some other people do not. Now lets say that you worked fairly hard for your cash. (I know not everyone does) Now lets say I'm awfully lazy, and instead of doing anything to help myself. Now you are violating my rights when you refuse to pay for me, no? If it is a basic human right, it dosen't just extend to the permantly-disabled. I deserve free food. If there are exepctions it isn't a basic human right. Greed may not be good, but IMHO socalism is just as bad as any invasion of privacy.

This is indeed the "classic" anti social-safety-net argument. It is also patently false. While it is possible to have anti-social lazy bum/addict/mentally ill people who will indeed do nothing, their "right" is only as deep as their ability to survive. We are talking basic sustinence. For everything else they have to work for. Hope is that at least in some cases they can see the error of their ways and work their way up to some reasonable standard of living. But there is also another, more cold and calculating side of this argument: if there is no provision for most basic things such as water and sustinence level of food as well as education for those who are willing to get the grades (i.e they have to work at learning), what will happen is that whole swathes of societies will be relegated to permanent strata of disfranchisement and poverty. This is a recipe for political and in the long-run military disaster as these people will inevietably revolt, and worse yet, fall under influence of those who will promise them those basic human necessities i.e. the likes of Al-Qeida. Taking a more long-term view, things look even dimmer. As "productivity" and "efficiency" of corporatist societies running the show at this point increases, so will the unemployment as the most "efficient" corporation is one with 100% automation and no employees. And that is just the tip of the iceberg of problems which will cause far more pain and misery if we do not try address them. In short, your "privacy" will be the last of your concerns when faced with hundreds of millions of people who have nothing to lose.

I know that it is libertarian phillosophy that once societies become free-market and free of government influence they will somehow flourish regardless of prior ethnic, historical, political, geographic and other conditions. I find that theory as peruasive and practical as that of one Mr. Karl Marx.

But the government is just not (in my opinion, which is no more valid than yours) the right vector for accomplishing this.

I see governments, specially big ones, to be hives of corruption, bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste... and yet I cannot see any practical way of accomplishing estabilishment of a backbone of society other then with determination trying to force those slimey creatures who run them to do the right thing. Otherwise it is left to individual citizens who unfortunately are in sufficient numbers, sufficiently ignorant, selfish, greedy and vicious to make sure that any other solution is unworkable. That is the great tragedy of this whole thing. If everyone was wise and did the right thing, we would not need governments, UN, etc. and libertarians would be totally right... and so would communists ... and any other utopian system followers because all those depend on this one impossible pre-condition.

Re:Think that's bad???

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Ah. I think I've seen your posts before. Why are you usually so caustic in discussions? There's no need for that.

I grew to be somewhat sarcastic in these last years as it would seem that wisdom and empirical experience is no longer desired and instead unwavering, uncritical Faith in God and His Presidential Messiah (or alternatively in the Allmighty Buck ... or both) have taken firm hold on what used to be a shining metropolis of enlightenment. While of course on the other side of the planet a competing set of witch-doctors is bewitching minds of the poor and future-less in the name of Allah.

I am getting this very disturbing vibe that some of us will end up crawling in ditches setting up IEDs to blow up troops of the new army of bright-eyed, infallable, Divine Christian Ubermenschen of Marching Freedom And Limitless Cruelty or end up trying to blow the brains out of some foaming at the mouth rabid wannabe "martyr" rushing with a bomb strapped to his ass before he gets too close.

Needles to say, I am not looking forward to the future as I used to.

Re:Think that's bad???

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think the people deserve to get their money back more than some lifeless, bloodless corporation.

Are you really this stupid? Really?! If only corporations were taxed (like at the 33-50% gp level), then there would be far less advantage if forming them. Non-corporated companies (or foreign-based corps.) would kick their asses. Maybe that is what you want: FINE AND DANDY. But it leaves exactly dick for tax revenues to fund your wish-fulfillment socialist agenda (that is not said as criticism but as fact: you got dick for taxes without coercive taxation of the individual: dick). Also, not all physcians are required to say OR uphold the Hippocratic Oath. Rousseau's Social Contract is non-binding...

Re:Think that's bad???

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

To boil it down, replace "someone" in your objections with "the government through the use of collected tax revenues" and your whole argument deflates.

Yes, but the government's tax revenu comes from people, people who are paying taxes, Government will never disappear, but maybe government should be like good code. Only as large as it needs to be.

Who should get the aid more, the disabled and infirm or Halliburton and ADM? The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is WHO they give the money to. Personally, I think the people deserve to get their money back more than some lifeless, bloodless corporation.

Personally the government has no right giving money to either one of them. It's not in the list of things the feds Can do, therefore it's a state by state thing (at least in the US)

Re:Think that's bad???

[gmcraff]

I think your arguments hold together well for any government that does not derive its powers from consent of the governed. I am right up with you to apply these "rights citizens have to demand of their governments" if those citizens have no effective way to check the power of their government, such as a dictatorship, theocracy, or other unelected power caste. Those rights must be demanded because they have been usurped, even if the people tolerate it.

However, in an elected government, where the people have empowered their government with specific powers, the government may only exercise those powers in accordance with the mandate that defines the government, the written constitution. When assigned a power, the government will assess taxation to support its execution of that power, the people will pay their taxes, and the program is executed. In a federal system, where there are many layers of government, certain powers may be assigned to certain layers. For example, in the USA, elementary schooling is generally assigned to local school boards, common defense is allocated to the federal and state governments, welfare programs happen at all levels. The federal government is not empowered with the authority to provide medical care, nor are most state governments. Some city governments may do so, but this is not guaranteed. If you live in an area where health care is not provided, your "rights" are not being violated. You just live in an area where that power has not been assigned to a body, thus your taxes are lower, thus you have more resources with which to fend for yourself.

And it is true, as well, that these "rights" are the moral obligation of every individual. It is morally correct to feed the hungery, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, educate the ignorant, heal the sick, etc. The Hippocratic Oath would be binding on any doctor of good conscience that took it, although you may note that there are medical schools that do not require the Hippocratic Oath of their doctors. (I am married to a doctor, and my wife assures me that she took the Oath before she began clinical school, but her opinion is that it doesn't mean much if you're not religious or non-religiously faithful to your word.) I do not absolve a government of it "responsibilities" because it does not have any until it has been assigned them by the people. An individual has the moral obligation, and that individual may feel that empowering the government to resolve that moral obligation collectively will have a greater good than acting singly. That individual may also feel that acting collectively outside of government may be more effective.

As to my arguments being ad absurdum, I would submit that absurdity has arrived. In a few states in the USA, due to malpractice costs, it is too expensive for doctors to practice. There is a doctor shortage as the doctors move out of the area or simply close up shop. How is a government empowered with providing health care to provide that if they haven't the doctors available? If the regulations and rules for elementary teachers are so onerous that it is more worthwhile to flip burgers, thus producing a teacher shortage, are your rights being violated because the state can't provide the education? (I know a teacher that quit public education to teach privately because the rules, regulations, etc, effectively meant that she wasn't teaching even though she was presiding over a class.) If the state is dead set determined to execute a health or education agenda, but they haven't the qualified doctors or teachers to do it, they have only two options: A) use unqualified labor, thus likely not accomplishing the goal while expending the resources, or B) force the qualified labor to do it, or give them no option but to do it at government direction. Option A results in smoke with no fire, utter fatuousness. Option B is produces results, but as you can recall, everyone has the right to leave their country, even the skilled laborers.

And, obviously, a governme

Re:Think that's bad???

[M_Cheevy]

"You can't force someone to work somewhere if they're simultaneously guaranteed the right to leave"

You're quite right. I did. I found a place where the playing field was more just; where corporations were controlled rather than controller; where you can't just sue someone at the drop of a hat; where there is socialised medicine; where school boards aren't made up of people without at least a degree in education. Perhaps if I thought we could get the corporations and lawyers under control in the US I would have stayed to fight, but the wise rat leaves the sinking ship first.

If a government does not meet the needs of the people it is time to leave it. Dirt and a flag aren't worth it especially when that flag no longer stands for the principals my ancestors fought and died for.

Re:Think that's bad???

[M_Cheevy]

P.S. Good arguments, well thought out and delivered. Sorry my response was so brief and terse, it didn't reflect the effort you put into yours, but it's past midnight here.

0mg j00 g0t t3h +5 "f4ux n3w5" p05t!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

j00 r 4 g3nt13m4n 4nd 4 5ch014r!! j00 w1n!!

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[jrumney]

in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism"

I wonder if anyone's done a study on what US Kids understand "terrorism" to mean. It seems to be an extremely overused term these days.

I Europe we call the sort of act "collective punishment", though some extremists equate it with terrorism. In the US, they reward it with billions of dollars of military aid.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[Martin Blank]

The right not to self-incriminate is actively pushed in the form of Miranda warnings. People have literally gotten away with murder because the arresting officer never read the Miranda warnings, and the Supreme Court has largely upheld such issues.

It's interesting to note that people in other (mostly English-speaking) countries have occasionally confused their own laws with the laws they see on TV. Not all countries require search warrants or defense counsel in all cases, and police sometimes have to deal with people asserting non-existent rights they learned from television.

So, teach some law in high school.

[Onimaru]

This really isn't all that surprising or even alarming to me. The Constitution isn't most holy writ, it's just a law. If you want people to know the law, you have to teach it to them. I firmly believe that basic con law and contracts should be taught in grade school, or at least in college (when people have attained majority and it starts to matter more). Yes the law is difficult and esoteric, but there's some amount of it we all need.

If someone refused to learn CPR because they weren't studying to be a doctor, we'd consider them to be lazy and a little hazardous to their peers. I think the law falls into the same camp. Certainly you're way more likely to sign a contract in a given day than you are to have a heart attack.

The actual study

[justkevin]

http://firstamendment.jideas.org/index.html

I think there are some disappointing results about what students know, but the article was alarmist.

And adults do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of what I see, many adults seem to have problems understanding it too.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[lachlan76]

if you take the school's money, or use the school's equipment,

And who pays for that money and equipment do you think?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Dracolytch]

Interestingly enough, in my highschool, we had an underground newspaper, because the newspaper teacher kept vetoing all the stories that the sudents cared about... Politics, sex, etc. The newspaper teacher hated it, but administration refused to do anything about it...

Unfortunately, the underground paper went too far and published the home addresses/phone numbers for all the teachers. The principal had to shut it down.

~D

Re:They aren't confused / misunderstanding complet

[bersl2]

I also would like to add that foreign press seems to think they have 1st ammendment rights in the US....

I would like to add that some of us believe that the rights granted by the First Amendment are not only American rights, but basic human rights.

You are saying in much milder language the equivalent of "Oh, what this? They're not American? Fuck 'em."

And the same goes for other rights, such as those granted by the Sixth Amendment (right to a speedy and public trial; right to know the infraction; right to obtain witnesses; right to obtain councel). *cough*Guantanamo*cough* Oh, pardon me.

It's still bad educaition

[MichaelPenne]

you don't teach someone something just by telling them about it, you have to give them a chance to practice it, or they won't really learn it.

The Governemt and most Corporations ignore it...

[haplo21112]

...so whay should kids care about it. Seriously in the days of the patriot act and other govenment suspention of our rights?

goes the other way too

[teh_dg]

Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

I suppose the other half, the ones who use internet, thought that their birthright was to say whatever they want whenever and whereever they want.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Leo McGarry]

Children go to school to learn about the freedoms that adults enjoy, not to exercise them themselves.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[cgranade]

This whole thing brings me back to a point I have tried to make over and over: School succeeds wonderfully at its purpose. Its purpose, however, is not to educate but to maintain a status quo under which individuals sit down, shut up and don't vote.

Forget the 1st, what about the 9th and 10th?

[rleibman]

Seriously. Everybody conveniently ignores these two ammendments, which IMHO are the most important ones.

But the press, staunch defenders of the 1st ignore them; the right, staunch defenders of the 2nd ignore them; the left, staunch defenders of the 4th ignore them.

I shiver at the state of the nation, but what is a man to do? Vote Libertarian? Hell yes!

At least they don't end up in Guantanamo Bay

[melted]

Held and tortured for years without any freedoms whatsoever. Headscarf? Boo fucking hoo. Nazi websites? Try to find a book mocking the black people and Native Americans in your nearest Barnes and Noble.

Re:At least they don't end up in Guantanamo Bay

[Gob Blesh It]

Things could certainly stand to improve in the U.S., too. Reading about the administration's arbitrary suspension of civil liberties for Gitmo detainees makes me feel ill.

Re:At least they don't end up in Guantanamo Bay

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. As an European it's good to see that there are Americans that do not approve the administartions handling of the detainees.

Re:At least they don't end up in Guantanamo Bay

[I'm Spartacus!]

Since when does the First Amendment apply to private businesses?

This has been a problem for a while

[ibn_khaldun]

This sort of problem goes back at least to the McCarthy red-baiting era: the typical exercise then was to present people with either the Bill of Rights or parts of the Declaration of Independence and indicate which were considered subversive. Typically

• Most people wouldn't recognize the source;
• About 2/3rds would consider it subversive

This is when schools were supposedly better.

Also, classical electronic media (broadcast radio and TV) have always been under more government control than print media because the electronic spectrum was considered a limited resource that had to be mangaged in the [cough, cough] "public interest." This is why Howard Stern is moving to satellite, and one can see considerable anatomy on cable whereas the exposure of a select bit of Janet Jackson creates an apparent national crisis.

But the print media have had far less censorship -- individuals could (and did) publish pretty much anything. As the cost of printing dropped in the 1960s with the introduction of inexpensive offset printing, the alternative press florished, and it sure wasn't because Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover thought this was a cool idea. Same thing was true a century earlier when being a journalist was a working-class job and not something confined to people with expensive hairdos -- even small towns would have papers expressing a wide variety of political opinions, rather than the "McNews" we put up with today.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[ifwm]

"we shouldn't expect anyone to risk their relatively cushy teaching jobs"

As soon as I read this I knew you were insane. Perhaps many teachers are bad at their jobs, but teaching 30 hyped up 7 year olds is as far from cushy as it gets. Were you born stupid or did you work at it?

Not that bad

[Rakishi]

And how many of those kids will be voting when they grow up? I doubt many of those who answered wrong to the questions, they don't care now and they probably won't care later. And to all those who think that not everyone voting is bad or that we need everyone to vote on specific issues: look at this study and ask yourselves "do I want these people voting for laws that will apply to me?"

School classes

[Antony-Kyre]

I believe it's elementary school, like 5th grade, they teach the three branches of government. I think the U.S. Constitution is covered in middle school. It probably depends upon the school and school district.

I'm for state rights (less federal government intervention), so I would hope that all 50 states would require something like the following for graduation. One semester of American Law and one semester of American Government.

Arresting someone without probable cause is wrong. Arresting someone on a hunch is wrong. Searching someone without probably cause is wrong. Searching someone's house without a warrent is wrong (unless in the heat of a moment or something like that, i.e. if someone ran in there).

And in my opinion, copyright and parent crimes, should be on the civil side of the law, not the criminal side, as it seems to be becoming.

Concerning censorship and the broadcast television channels, the ones anyone can get with a cheap t.v. and an antenna. The only compromise I could see would be something like requiring t.v. ratings, and if a network were to violate that, fine them. Since the broadcast channels are free to anyone. That is, broadcast channels is to someone standing on a street, and cable channels is to someone in the privacy of their own home. If someone is naked on the street, it's a violation of someone's right not to see.

Re:School classes

[J'raxis]

Arresting someone without probable cause is wrong. Arresting someone on a hunch is wrong. Searching someone without probably cause is wrong. Searching someone's house without a warrent is wrong (unless in the heat of a moment or something like that, i.e. if someone ran in there).

I think the biggest thing they need to teach people a lot better is exactly when and how and why cops can stop someone, search someone, and how you can refuse.

You do not have to consent to a search at a traffic stop. The cops can perform various cursory searches, can require you to present your license/registration/insurance information, and can even get away with using drug dogs per a recent USSC decision, but they cannot search much more than that, and you should always refuse to consent to it--so, if they do perform a search beyond what's permissible, you can get it thrown out in court.

You do not have to consent to a search of your person if you're stopped. They can do the various cursory searches like the "Terry" (pat-down) search looking for weapons, but again, you don't have to consent to a search, and they can't look in bags or anything like that. Unless you're in a vehicle, you don't even have to identify yourself to police unless you're in a jurisdiction that has a law stating as such (the recent Hiibel court decision simply said these laws, which exist in 22 out of 50 states, are legal, it did not say cops everywhere can demand ID from people as a lot of people assume).

These are really the most important things--much more police abuse comes from people not knowing they could refuse a warrantless search than arguing over probable cause after the fact.

Could get rid of the frivolous lawsuit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

' Oh, and you'll learn all sorts of crazy trivia you probably weren't aware of - like the fact that a right to a jury trial for civil cases requires the damages to be worth at least $20 '

If we limited damages to $20, that would be a positive change. You wouldn't have a greedy old bat filing a frivolous lawsuit against McDonalds for $20 because she spilled hot coffee in her own lap.

Re:Could get rid of the frivolous lawsuit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If we limited damages to $20, that would be a positive change.

That's not what it says at all, nor is it what the parent said. It's just that if the damages come out to $19.99, you're not required to have a jury at your civil trial.

Given that you didn't read either the link nor the summary correctly, I'll not bother with the remainder of your ill-informed post.

Re:Could get rid of the frivolous lawsuit problem

[Inthewire]

Goddamn do I ever get tired of this undying misunderstanding of the McDonald's Coffee Lady.

1. McD's served coffee at temperatures capable of causing injuries requiring skin grafts.
2. As a result of multiple lawsuits McD's was ordered to lower the temperature of their coffee.
3. They didn't, at least not across the entire company.
4. A lady bought a cup of their coffee and (stupidly, but hey) managed to spill it all over her lap, necessitating skin grafts.
5. She sued McD's for medical costs.
6. The jury learned about McD's history of letting this happen and decided to punish them.
7. The award was reduced on appeal.

Key points - McD's was grossly negligent and the lady was not being greedy.

Ob Simpsons...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to miss Canada, all tucked away down there.

And how is this significant?

[aeroelastic]

Well, there's a reason 17 year olds aren't allowed to be president or serve on the supreme court. News Flash! People with no real world experience don't know how the real world works!

Besides, when was the last time flag burning was a popular form of protest? 1970?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Moofie]

Except they can indeed label your independent paper as contraband, and forbid it on school grounds.

Not that I think that's at all acceptable, but that's what will happen.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Billly Gates]

I agree with the principal.

Mainly because paranoid conservative parents could sue the school.

Children do not have rights until they are adults and the supreme court has ruled over and over again in favor of the schools in any lawsuit over civil rights sadly.

Probably another bogus survey

[sstidman]

This is unbelievable. Maybe I skimmed through all of the posts too quickly, but not a single person questioned the results of this study. Do any of you remember being in high school? Did any of you ever do anything silly or foolish just for the fun of it? Ever put down ridiculous answers to a survey just to skew the results in an absurd direction?

I don't know that I would take this survey to be the definitive measure of the average students views on anything. In general, polls are something to be viewed skeptically, though noone ever does. There are many ways to screw up a poll and many ways to interpret the results, so I don't tend to take them as seriously as everyone else seems to. You can make a survey say anything you want.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

When I moved to a new high school in around '90, I was shocked to discover that students with cars were required to pay a $35 parking lot fee each semester (i.e. $70 per year to drive to school.)

I was also writing for the school newspaper. I subsequently found out that neither the staff nor the cheerleaders were required to pay the fee. I then discovered that my car had been broken into on campus. At which point I decided to ask where the money went and why it wasn't spent on security.

I interviewed various people, including the school principal who later told me I wasn't allowed to quote him. I told him that's not the way it works. There was a sum of something like tens of thousands of dollars each year being paid to the school (not the district) and I wanted to know where the money went. Never figured it out, story was never printed in the paper, I dropped out of school later that year.

It's little wonder that students have these attitudes when this is their example.

Re:Slightly off topic, but... (free assembly)

[ignorant_newbie]

We ought to have a right to drive for the same reason we have a right to bear arms, it seems to me. So where do states get off still telling us that this is a "privilege" and not a right?

how are you wrong? let me count the ways:

1. If i'm (for example ) legally blind, do I still have the right to drive a car?
2. If i screw up with a handgun, i can (maybe ) kill 1 or two people. If i screw up with a car, I can easily kill 60 kids on a school bus
3. There's absolutly no good reason i can't a. ride the bus, b. ride a bike, c. call a taxi, d. bum a ride from a friend
4. with irc and voip, it costs exactly nothing to set up a chatroom/conference call, so the need to meet face to face is unproven

Are they really wrong?

[category_five]

Perhaps these children are actually more in touch with reality than more educated people. Yes you can publish an article the government would not approve of but it will never happen in reality. It is in the interest of the Newspaper to censor themselves in order to maintain close ties with the military industrial complex which grant them access to needed stories. It is much less expensive for a paper to simply report on a government press conference they were invited to rather than alienate, say the Bush administration, and publish harsh criticism of government policy.
Criticism of public policy is allowable if it falls within the accepted realm of debate. Hence papers are allowed to question the method by which American Empire should be allowed to function, however questioning whether or not the military industrial complex is even something that is beneficial to Americans is not allowed to be questioned.
Honestly, we have congressmen who are put in office by the contributions of large corporate donors, which leaves them beholden to these companies. Does this ever make front page? No, instead we have front page news about who a senator is sleeping with.
Wake up people, what these kids are talking about is reality. No matter how much you stick your head in the sand the filtering of public discourse is real.

Look at the inverted results - it's not so bad!

[Engdy]

I conclude that 50% of the students are aware of their 1st amendment freedoms, and I say that's not so bad. Threaten a group of students with freedom impinging restrictions, and quite a few of them will be able to speak up.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[truesaer]

I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech. You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for.

Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.

The fact is that if the government were supporting a regular newspaper in such a tangental way there is NO way they could censor the content. The only reason they can in this case is that the SCOTUS seems to think that all bets are off when it comes to constitutional rights in schools. And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!

2nd Amendment

[Johnny Mnemonic]

How many NRA members realize that "well-regulated" is part of the 2nd Amendment?

Re:They aren't confused / misunderstanding complet

[Martin Blank]

They do have First Amendment rights in the US. If they're here legally, there's nothing stopping them from publishing as they see fit. Sometimes publishing in the US is the best way to awaken the world to problems overseas. The government may not act on it directly, but get a few thousand or a few million people to know about something, and social and financial support just might follow real fast.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[ifwm]

"What place does a "discussion" of oral sex have in high school?"

Hygeine and disease prevention?

Or are facts and reason not welcome in your world?

Without knowing the questions the study is usless

[LWATCDR]

Seriously you can slant a study just about any way you want just be how you put the questions. Here is an example.
"1. Do you think a newspaper has the right to publish anything with out limitations even a story about a military mission like a hostage rescue? Even if publishing that story would result in the deaths of the hostages?"
If you answer yes then they can put you down no then you are marked in the I think censorship is a good column.

To slant the Internet porn question it is even easier.

"2. Do you think the government has the right to limit access to child pornography?"

The value of the survey can only be determined if you know the questions. There is a science to writing surveys in such a way as to get the results you want.

As to school papers? Oh boy High School papers teach you so much about freedom of the press. Sorry Charley but they are be definition censored to the hilt and about useless. Try and get anything published in school paper about Evolution being taught or not taught in a high school. Maybe look into how much money and other "perks" your High School's football coach gets?

Wake up, Liberals!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

""Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's."

Really? I wonder if Theo Van Gogh and the Armanious family feel that way. These people all share one thing in common: they were brutally murdered by radical Muslims because they were exercizing freedom of speech. Van Gogh had an Islamic tract pinned to his chest with a knife. The Armanious daughter had lacerations on her face and chest. Wake up, liberals. The real threat here is not some shadow corporation. It's radical Islam. All over the world (but especially in Europe), radical Muslims immigrate and refuse to assimilate. They export their racist and mysoginistic dogma to every corner of the globe, and those who speak up are murdered. Do you not understand that the Muslim vision is one of total world domination? You liberals had better wake up and stop worshipping at the altar of diversity and tolerance before you have an Islam vs. everyone else world war on your hands.

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[de1orean]

Radical islam: a coupla thousand.

U.S., in the name of freedom: a few hundred thousand.

we're winning!! w00T!!!!111one

p.s.: anon coward=lamerz.

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I think your statistics regarding the US fanatics are a bit conservative.

Yes, It's supposed to be a pun

But, really.

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a very intelligent and articulate reply. You have a firm grasp of current events and world history as a whole. You clearly seem to understand that the Islamic prophet Mohammed encourages Muslims to accept peace treaties under false pretenses so that they can buy time to amass their forces and crush the infidels. In fact, the Qu'ran documents how Muhammed practiced this very priciple.

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[Jedi Alec]

much like the "Christian" vs. everyone else war dear Mr. Bush is conducting as we speak? Give me a break. Theo was killed by an isolated nutcase. Terrible as that may be, every ethnic/cultural/religious group will have a couple of total idiots willing to do the unthinkable, often when ordered to do so by someone who is either just as much of a maniac but at least smart enough not to run around with weapons him/herself, or by someone who has a little agenda of his/her own...

Fear of or hatred towards a certain group of people is a wonderful way of distracting a populace from the real issues at hand. The Americans did it with the communists first and with the muslims later. Hitler had the jews. Stalin had...well, pretty much anyone with an IQ over 60. The Japanese massacred the Chinese. The Chinese massacred other Chinese. There's always someone "wrong" to blame for everything...

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[Taladar]

before you have an Islam vs. everyone else world war on your hands.

I'd prefer that one to the USA against everyone else world war that is much more likely at the moment.

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[FnH]

Although there undeniably are fundamental muslims, I don't believe us 'liberals' need to 'stop worshipping the altar of diversity and tolerance' and go searching for an Islam vs. everyone else world war.
Fundamentalism (Muslim, Christian or something else) should be fought, but I'm sure this isn't a war you fight with guns.
War only breeds more fundamentalism.

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[CmdrGravy]

Oh please, do shut up.

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Theo was killed by an isolated nutcase."

Really?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004 824.php

Exactly how many "isloated nutcases" are there? Need I remind you that we're both speaking about a culture that endorses removing a woman's clitoris to keep her from enjoying sex? Bunch of freaking barbarians...

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake up, liberals. The real threat here is not some shadow corporation. It's fundamental Christianity. All over the world (but especially in Europe), fundamentalist Christians immigrate and refuse to assimilate. They export their racist and mysoginistic dogma to every corner of the globe, and those who speak up are murdered. Do you not understand that the Christian vision is one of total world domination? You liberals had better wake up and stop worshipping at the altar of diversity and tolerance before you have a Christian vs. everyone else world war on your hands.

Re:Wake up, Liberals!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those wacky Christians. Always calling for jihad and lopping off critics' heads... Idiot.

More complete results

[HoldenCaulfield]

As always the case with new's summaries of findings, I was curious as to what the methodology and wording of the questions were . . .

Specific questions, and a break down of the answers are here

No surprise here, please move along

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no shock or news here. We're talking about high school students here. Thinking back to my days in HS, I was an opinion-less drone just like 95% of the rest of my class. We gave the answers we thought the teachers wanted. Maybe 2 kids in the class, usually the "brains" as they were called, had any realistic inkling about politics, philosophy, psychology or human rights. Everyone else just spouted whatever they were taught or heard from somewhere.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[GigsVT]

It's funny that so many are responding the way you are, when it is absolutely incorrect. You all are the same as the respondants to the survey, you don't understand the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[einhverfr]

You have half of it. However, consider a recent supreme court case (last year):

A woman is arrested on murder charges. After hours of police interrogation without Miranda warnings, she confesses. They then read her rights to her and then ask her to confess again. The Supreme Court rules that in such a case the confession was to be allowed in court despite the fact that the Miranda warnings were simply done essentailly after the fact and that it was then difficult to face the police pressure after that point.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[NeoSkandranon]

Don't blame that drop in student newspapers and media sciences entirely on the goverment. Kids, by and large, frankly don't give a shit. When I went to HS (class of 01 here) the student newspaper was a vapid waste of paper, and media sciences did nothing but announce the previous day's sports events and student birthdays (WTF?)

Now if you were a school official and saw that this newspaper which took X hundred dollars and hours of student time to put together, was largely ignored by the student body wouldn't you get rid of it too?

it's almost time to take over the country

[kevinx]

binky: What are we going to do today?

brain: According to this slashdot article our hard work of mind numbing subliminal propaganda has paid off.

binky: So,are we going to take over the world now?

brain: Not today. We will wait. The next generation of preschoolers will wave all their rights. Muahaha

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[kannibal_klown]

My last year living on campus...

It was winter (a cold one at that) and some jerks had pulled the fire alarm like 2 or 3 mights in a row (around 3 AM).

Well, they wouldn't let us go inside any of the other buildings and had campus cops there to make sure we didn't wander off. Meanwhile, there was ice and snow on the ground and only half of us were awake enough to remember that fact (and so a lot of us were under dressed).

So, you have a few hundred college students wearing slippers, pajama pants, and maybe half had jackets in around 15 degree (F) weather. Nowhere to go, nothing to do.

The stupid jerks wouldn't let us back in unless the guilty parties would step forward about pulling the alarms. We were out there for like 15 to 20 minutes listening to them say "You are all staying outside in the cold until someone steps forward."

They eventually gave up. I mean, what did they think? Was someone really going to fess up to it before? Now coming forward would started a riot because we were freezing and pissed.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[nazzdeq]

As opposed to CNN "news", maybe the New York Times "news"? FOX is alot more balanced than the rest of the bleeding heart liberal networks. The only reason you think they are not is because they actually express opinions from both sides of the aisle. The rest of the networks just give you the liberal, tree hugging, politically correct, anti-war rhetoric drivel. First the DEMs said you can't go into Afghanistan, because no one has ever been successful, we did, we won and they had elections. Then the DEMS said, you can't go into Iraq. Two weeks later we were "bogged" down. Then we took Baghdad and most of the country. Then they said it was a "quagmire". Now the Iraqis are voting and dancing in the streets. Now the DEMs are saying let's not "overhype" the situation. It's as if the democrats care more about the habitat of the red tailed squirrel or the cruel treatment of chickens than they do about freedom of other people. If they elect Howard Dean as the DNC chairman, they can kiss the presidency goodbye for the next 50 years. -Nazz

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Mnemia]

I think you're correct about that - or at least that's how the schools see their role these days. They're really more of a venue for people to push whatever political agenda they personally have than for any real education to take place.

This is the problem with public education in the first place. The government will seek to interfere if given control and the ability to do so. IMHO, the only reason we avoided that kind of crap for a long time in this country was because public education was largely decentralized - funded, run, and controlled by local and state government. But notice that these days the federal government is seeking to interfere more and more all the time? As soon as a central government (or at least ours) takes over total control of education, then it's over for our country. They will produce generations of students who don't know how to question authority in its many forms or be creative, and everything (economy, civil society, etc) will eventually implode. This is why the $50 billion+ budget for the Department of Education really scares me. The reason that money has been appropriated has little to do with improving education and a lot to do with gaining federal leverage over school funding - and by extension, school curriculum.

Alternatively, you could view this as a business opportunity, since you're one of the "smart ones" who realizes what's happening. Just find some sort of useless shit to sell that all the idiots being turned out by public education will just snap up, and you could become rich! Personally, I'm leaning towards trying to figure out a way to exploit the overly religious (since so many people will just buy anything if they think it comes from a "Christian company", etc).

Not surprisingly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans don't even know that the Dutch Declaration of Independence (1581)served as a model for the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi there.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know that much about the first amendment. Or any of 'em, for that matter. Sure, I can say "freedom of the press" for one, and "you can't touch my guns" for the other - but that hardly qualifies.

Moreover, the older I get (I'm about to hit 36) the more I realize the less that I know.

My point - I'm being honest. I'd spectulate that a significant percentage of people who read /. are in the same boat, and a greater percentage of my citizens are in worse shape.

What's to be done? The US doesn't have much structure for "continuing education." About the best that people do, is parot back what their preacher or some other illuminary said during the coffee hour. Our attitude is once you've graduated, you're done. Game won, time to score up some $$$! But, if anything, we need to stay refreshed now more than ever.

Not surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

I took my necessary "U.S. Government" class in highschool in my senior year.

Our study of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights was someone's three page article on what they thought the U.S. Constitution was and what the Bill of Rights guaranteed.

We did not study the actual text of the documents or information. This was in 1980.

So, if that trend of educating students continued from 1980, I am almost certain that maybe a paragraph summary of both are what is studied in highschool today, sprinkled with discussions of censorship, etc. with the proper political slant (whatever slant is promoted by that particular teacher, school, district, etc.).

I bet is a survey was done of various grades (1st through 12th) of what materials were used to teach U.S. Government (Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically), I am sure the results would be amazing, in a very very bad way.

In related news.

[Anonymous Coward]

US babies dont understand english.

While a few were able to reply with broken slurs or requests for their parents, when polled by a school officials about their viewpoints on the constitution, a large majority simply drooled.

Schools far too timid to teach the real meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

They should teach this simple fact in schools:

The IInd Amendment is about killing people who would overstep the limits to government set out in the other nine, and in the rest of the Constitution.

It isn't about self defense. It isn't about duck hunting. It is about killing oppressors.

Once this fact is learned, I am certain that every student would become more interested in his rights.

What's so surprising about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean after all, a large number of Americans think that the 2nd Amendment is the amendment that gives the state the right to form a milita. It's just decades of liberal brainwashing taking its toll.

Re:What's so surprising about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to conservative brainwashing, which tells you that the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on and the government can do whatever it wants while the country is "at war"?

Failure of our educational system

[MCraigW]

I see this as a failure of our educational system here in the U.S.

I would wager that these students know even less about the second ammendment.

What does the flag represent?

[Aexia]

The flag represents the freedom to burn it.

considering how many died fighting for the ideals it represents

That's not really a reason for anything. Lots of people have died in large numbers for really stupid things. The fact that so many people died fighting for it doesn't make it any more or less valid. It's irrelevant.

Re:What does the flag represent?

[renehollan]

While it is true that people have died for lots of stupid things, I don't think believing to be supporting the First Amendment is one of them. Tragic, if the belief is misguided, but not stupid.

The very reason that one has the freedom to burn the flag should encourage sufficient pause before actually doing so.

If not, well then, go ahead, as you note, you have that right. But don't expect me to invite you to dinner afterward.

Re:What does the flag represent?

[a whoabot]

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:44)

Re:What does the flag represent?

[LukaFox]

"The flag represents the freedom to burn it."

I agree.

If the day ever comes when a law against flag burning is passed, that will be the day I burn a flag in protest.

Re:What does the flag represent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. A LOT of people died to kill the jews and that doesn't justify contemporary efforts to finish their work.

Re:What does the flag represent?

[keith6689]

Quite. By that logic, you could readily justify the position of the Nazi party in Germany. After all, a great many people also died fighting for that cause as well.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[nine-times]

Basically, everything being taught now comes from a point of view of no judgement calls. If there is something open to interpretation, either it's not taught, or it's taught from a historical context as opposed to the 'meaning' or 'message' of said lesson.

I, personally, view this as the principle problem in public edutainment. Schools are viewed by the general population as having the first priority of "meeting the needs of the students", or something along those lines. They're always talking about building "high self-esteem" or providing a ground for enlightenment. Though I don't think this is "bad", it's the wrong focus and the wrong approach.

First things first. Public schools first priority should be to teach children how to be "good citizens"-- and no, I don't mean in any fascist sense of "good citizen". Upon completion of twelfth grade, kids should know, at least, the laws they're expected to follow, and the ideals behind these laws. They should be taught about the system of self-government into which they'll be entering, and how to navigate it. The other subjects, such as math, reading, writing, and science, students should know well enough to take care of their own finances, read street signs, write a letter, and not do stupid things like cut into a car battery with a chain-saw.

I'm certainly not saying education should *stop* there, but the priority of public schools should be to make sure that everyone graduating is a functional citizen capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the citizenry. Meet that level of education first. Otherwise, we're doing children a disservice, by expecting them to be good citizens without providing them the means.

+5: Tinfoil Hat Rant

[goldspider]

"I mean, come on, one day you publish something and next day you wake up at Guantanamo bay handcuffed to a railing with a bag over your head."

Nothing like resorting to hyperbole in the absence of a compelling argument.

Note to CmdrTaco

[generic-man]

In the future, please do as michael does: post this tinfoil hat material in YRO or Politics so I don't have to consciously ignore it.

Actually, you're kind of wrong

[Old Man Kensey]

CrimsonAvenger wrote:

There is NO "preamble" to the Bill of Rights.

Actually, in a manner of speaking, there is. The OP's quote is taken from the original proposed amendments to the Constitution, said list being drawn up by Congress an approved on March 1, 1789. As a note, there was a preamble to said list, it did include the quote as cited by the OP, and there were twelve proposed amendments, of which one was never approved and one was approved in 1992. The First Amendment was originally "Article the Third".

Re:Actually, you're kind of wrong

[CrimsonAvenger]

Your link led to the piece of legislation that proposed those Amendments.

From the text of the legislation, second paragraph:

RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and Purposes as Part of the said Constitution, viz.

Compare that to Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Note the references to 2/3 of both Houses of Congress, and to 3/4 of the States in both.

While there might be a Preamble "in a manner of speaking", there is none actually in the Constitution. Each of the proposed Amendments was treated separately ("All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified"), and, in fact, the first Article mentioned was not ratified, and the second Article was ratified in 1992.

Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[nmnilsson]

In no way would I like to diminish the relevance of the study, but aren't most high-school kids like this?

As a comparison: There have been several studies made on students' opinion of capital punishment here in Sweden, and a majority were in favor!
For most europeans, this is a horrifying result.

And there isn't much difference between 'there ought to be a law against' and 'there is a law against' in their age.
Is only later in life you understand that the law is something you won't always agree with, but you have to obey anyway.

I don't think people develop the capability to reflect properly about questions of justice and freedoms, beyond their basic emotions, until they get older.

Re:Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[DarkKnightRadick]

Is only later in life you understand that the law is something you won't always agree with, but you have to obey anyway.

and then later on in life you learn which laws are really good ones (no murder, rape, robbery) and which ones are bad (no copying your legally owned multimedia, no sharing of books or music, etc.) and you defy the ones which you believe are bad.

I defy any law that goes against what it really means to be an American. No licenses for drivers, it's an infringement on our right to travel anonymously. No licenses for owning a gun, the Constitution puts no restriction on the ownership of firearms. No telling people whom they can and cannot (or how many they can) marry, only the Queen and the Church can do that (and neither one leads this country). I will also gladly go to jail in protest of these laws as I defy them if it ever comes to that. Civil disobediance against unjust laws is exactly what it means to be free.

Re:Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[Cheerio Boy]

I defy any law that goes against what it really means to be an American. No licenses for drivers, it's an infringement on our right to travel anonymously. No licenses for owning a gun, the Constitution puts no restriction on the ownership of firearms. No telling people whom they can and cannot (or how many they can) marry, only the Queen and the Church can do that (and neither one leads this country). I will also gladly go to jail in protest of these laws as I defy them if it ever comes to that. Civil disobediance against unjust laws is exactly what it means to be free.

Unfortunately most of us living in the United States of Amerika seem to no longer have those options unless we choose to fight for them.

I currently have a wife and daughter. Do I want to fight openly for those rights for her? Yes. Do I have a way of doing that without endangering her future? No. It all comes down to what dice I want to roll and is the payoff worth taking the chance.

My heart says yes but my mind sees my daughter starving because my wife can't support her because I've been killed or yanked off to Gitmo.

I'm honestly just not sure what to do...

Re:Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[nmnilsson]

I beg to differ. I think civil disobedience is breaking the law, knowing and ensuring that you'll be punished for it, as a demonstration.
If you break the law more lightly, per definition you have anarchy.
And before making oneself a martyr, one'll probably have come up with other ways of working against a law :-)
Socrates made the same point (or so the story goes), when he obeyed the law and drank the cup of poison, explaining to his friends that he couldn't well break a law he had never contested.

I'm not saying that I never trade music or drive too fast. But I do admit to myself that I am committing a crime.

As to freedom, I'm willing to trade anonymousity for a reduced risk of having a full frontal with someone who hasn't learnt to drive.
I'd trade my gun, if I had one, for a reduced risk of being shot.
I also know that many people, Americans in particular, have a different view of freedom that I cannot see the relevance of - and that's often a sign I've missed an important point...

Re:Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[DarkKnightRadick]

I'm not saying that it's not breaking the law. I know it's breaking the law, but it's breaking the law in such a way as to bring attention to just how unjust it is.

I agree, you shouldn't have to face drivers who just don't know how to drive, but really, you already have that with our current licensing scheme. Buy a car with a roll cage, crush zones and front and side air bags is all I can say. Let the stupid ones kill themselves off. Sure it'd be really dangerous for a while, but then it'd taper back down to how dangerous it is now with licensed drivers not knowing how to drive.

To trade your gun to prevent getting shot is a fallacy. I have seen statistics (they were presented during a speech in one of my college course so I don't have an references for you) that countries with stricter gun laws then America does have higher death rates from gun related crime. Keeping guns out of the hands of lawful citizens puts lawful citizens at risk! Even in America, if you break it down by state, the states with the least amount of homocides from gun violence are those with the most lax gun laws! When criminals don't know who has a gun, what makes you think they'll draw on you (lets for the moment not count drive-by's as those are huge acts of cowardice), or for that matter even rob you! Those crooks want to live to spend their loot! Like you and me they don't want to die. They might not care if you die, but self-preservation runs just as strongly in them as it does you or I.

The best way to not get shot is to draw faster then the opponent. That might sound old-westerny but it's true and if I'm going to die from a gun shot wound, I'm gonna try and take down the other guy too! I really think our Founding Fathers and the authors of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments weren't actually drafted until a few years after the Constitution) were on the ball with that and saw how that would really translate through the ages. Those guys weren't the idiot politicians we have today, they were highly intelligent and mostly in touch with their constituents. Lets not second-guess 200+ years of history just because someone wants to pass the blame for their child's murder from t he murderer to an inanimate instrument.

Re:Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[DarkKnightRadick]

Which is truly sad. It's like the elections in Iraq. 60-70% voter turnout! When's the last time any district, much less any state, reported such a turn out for our elections and we've had them every four years for the past 200+ years! This past election especially! We don't have to have travel too far to get to our polling places, and if we do we can drive there in relative safety. We don't have to worry about terrorists bombing our polling places, we don't have to worry about insurgents coming in and mowing everyone down with machine gun fire! We probably have the safest elections in the world, and the turn out for them is abhorently low. It makes me SAD to associate with those of us in America who don't vote. People fucking died to make sure we didn't live in tyranny and we can't even get up and go vote? What. The. Fuck. Pisses me off.

The Iraqis who turned out today are more patriotic then those terrorists and insurgents, hell they're more patriotic then most of us Americans! Gods bless those Iraqis who voted today, may their grand experiment in democractic republicanism work as good as (if not better then) ours and go FUCK Syrica, Egypt and Iran!

Re:Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[ynohoo]

I have seen statistics (they were presented during a speech in one of my college course so I don't have an references for you)

Buddy, you were lied too. The US has way more violent death than any nation that has effective gun control. Strangely enough, you also have way more violent death than other other countries with the same level of gun control (i.e. Canada).

Don't you realize that waving a gun around makes you a target, not safer?

Re:Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[DarkKnightRadick]

With straight up numbers, yes. We also have more people then most industrialized nations (China being an exception, although I'm not sure if we all them industrialized or not), too. Per capita GB has more gun related crime and death then we do, though, and you folks have the most stringent laws.

Waving a gun around makes everyone less safe. Carrying one for protection makes you safer.

Re:Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[ynohoo]

Nope, your stats are bogus. The latest Google found for me were from the Public Health Agency of Canada, quoting UN figures from the late 90s:

Gun homocides per million:
UK - 1.3
USA - 62.4
Canada - 6.0
Northern Ireland - 35.5

Looks like you are way ahead of us in that department. Northern Ireland was doing its best to catch up. I wonder where they got the guns?
Source

Re:Anyone know the statistics for adults?

[DarkKnightRadick]

That is interesting. I'll have to do some research on my own now. Damnit, I hate working. ;p

Not hard to imagine...

[DaFallus]

Kids don't fully understand the 1st ammendment mainly because its something they have a warped perspective of. I remember studying the Constitution in school, and I never really understood the First Ammendment because I never felt that it applied to me. At my public high school there were very strict restrictions on dress and speech, such as getting detention or suspension for cussing, etc, as well as male students being dragged out of class to the bathroom and being forced to shave with a disposable razor if they had any visible facial hair. I can guarantee that this played a large part in the mislead interpretation I had of the First Amendment for all those years.

Re:Not hard to imagine...

[psykocrime]

as well as male students being dragged out of class to the bathroom and being forced to shave with a disposable razor if they had any visible facial hair.

WTF!?!? PLEASE tell me that you just made that up... Man, if that really happened, that is some MAJOR bullshit. Good thing my highschool didn't have that policy.. I would have literally fought, kicking, punching, scratching, whatever, with anybody that tried to physically force me to shave against my will. That's just fucking absurd.

If I ever have kids in high-school, and something like that happens, I hope my kid decides to start swinging, and KTFO somebody.

Re:Not hard to imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

This happened in 8th grade.

Our technical drawing teacher had the habit of very occasionally using a bamboo cane on students' hands. This was by and large allowed by the school.

One day he got mad at one of my classmates for not having done his homework and told him to put his hands on the table. My friend was/is a motorcycle nut and worked at a machine shop during afternoons, and had some martial art training. He put his hands on the table, got them whacked, yanked the bamboo cane out of the teacher's hands, broke it in three pieces and handed it back. The teacher tried to hit him. They got into a fight and the teacher got his ass kicked.

The principal decided that the teacher was at fault after reporting the incident because he had started the fight by hitting my friend and, incidentally, had also lost a fair fight and therefore shouldn't ask for retribution.

Surprisingly that teacher and my friend got along a lot better from that day on, after a very icy two weeks.

This happened in Italy in the early nineties.

McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

How many /.ers will post the "McFacts".
I am dead serious when I say the people who think the award,any award in this case was justified should not be allowed to vote drive own property or do anything other than drool in a locked ward.

Meanwhile, insurance rates in this countly are through the roof for buisness getting sued into the ground becasue someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense.[/rant]

What about the FCC

[adolfojp]

I thought that the FCC had the right to censor what it considered to be indecent.

I thought that the Government had the right to profile and investigate people that it considers to be unamerican.

I have a great idea! Lets put Jefferson in a dynamo and harness the electrical power that can be produced by his revolving remains.

Cheers,
Adolfo

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[revery]

You want to know the real bottom line?

Parents are responsible for their child's education, not the government, not their church, not anyone else in the world, them. We've been screwing things up for years by letting the government run education, and at some point, it's going to have to stop.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[mrball_cb]

About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.

Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material. Forcing various institutions to enable filters on content.

Many will say that the government cannot restrict indecent material and for us that's correct. However, don't forget the limited view these kids have of the Internet (yes, Gore's internet). They're in a school connected to an internet that is HIGHLY filtered and restricted by their school district. Federal Law requires it. It's no wonder they think the government can and is doing that for everybody. They don't have enough real world experience yet to know any better (with a few exceptions as always).

Blue skies...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[justins]

I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech. You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for.

You've got it all wrong. The principal was constitutionally off-base in restricting the speech, as it is the taxpayer who is funding the paper. He was acting as a representative of the government, and the government cannot selectively restrict speech in this way.

Anyone interested in learning more ought to google "NEA first amendment" or something to that effect. The National Endowment of the Arts is the traditional lightning rod for speech restriction by government, since there are so many artists funded by the program who try to be deliberately provocative, and so many hicks responsible for legislating funding for the program. Traditionally the supreme court has found restrictions imposed on the speech of funded artists to be unconstitutional for a few different reasons, although I haven't followed supreme court cases much in the last couple of years, and the federal courts (like the rest of the country) are getting dumber and more conservative...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported.

Then you have the freedom to buy your own presses, publish on your own paper, and distribute you literature off of school grounds. Did your advertisers pay you enough to purchases your own presses? If they didn't, then you were really supported by the school.

OTOH, if they did, then you should have done as I suggested. You would find that the principal couldn't have stopped the activity in this instance.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Ironsides]

what with people blatantly ignoring the freedom to own weapons, and the freedom from unreasonable search/seizure) ...

Seriously, what state are you from. And when was the last time you were in (among other places) Texas.

Haha

[Dr. Evil]

Meanwhile, insurance rates in this countly are through the roof for buisness getting sued into the ground becasue someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense

That's your public health insurance subsidy. "Have you been injured in an accident?! call <insert lawyer here>."

Not a very efficient system, but the lawyers like it.

School Officials are the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.

What hypocrisy! School principals and teachers may say that "unpopular views" are protected by the First Amendment, but many public schools are run like little dictatorships. Student free speech is routinely punished under claims of "diversity" and "tolerance"--which in practice often means an intolerance for genuine diversity. And perhaps the most common First Amendment cases to enter our courts are attempts by school officials to censor religious free speech by students.

Matters grow worse when students go to college. When I was at the University of Washington, campus officials tried to expel one organization I belonged to for speech closely linked to our organization's purpose and approved by our campus adviser. I was very bluntly told that people holding views like mine (opposition to legalized abortion) should not be allowed on campus. Like the earlier black and Jew, unborn babies have a legal status of zero and criticism of that is not permitted. My great-great-great-grandfather was lynched for criticizing the war to defend slavery and its ugly aftermath.

So don't slam the students. If anything, they're simply reflecting the authoritarian values school officials are teaching by their deeds.

Nor should we forget a year after they took power, Nazi leaders criticized two professions for becoming too compliant with what both thought was the Nazi agenda. Journalists were criticized for making their newspapers sound too much alike and school teachers for devoting time to Nazi propaganda that was best left to teaching reading and math.

--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle

MOD PARENT DOWN, TAX PROTESTING TROLL

[vyrus128]

Parent needs, like all tax protestors, to realize that the law does not exist in a vacuum. Since the courts do not admit a distinction between "US Citizenship" and "State Citizenship," no such distinction exists, REGARDLESS of what you may pull out of (in increasing order of probability) US statue law, the Internet, or your ass, on the subject.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[monkeydo]

The most important sentence in that FAQ is:

"But the First Amendment only prohibits government officials from suppressing speech; it does not prevent school censorship at private schools."

Slashdotter's would do well to remember that, next time they want to cry, "censorship."

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[MasonMcD]

You all are the same as the respondants to the survey, you don't understand the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment.


I understand, but there is the concept of in loco parentis for minors, as well as behavior appropriate for school.

Say you work for a government agency, or are a volunteer for one. How much slack do you think you'd get distributing flyers for the Ku Klux Klan? Freedom of speech, man!

With rights come responsibilities, as well as consequences. No one should be fired or expelled for speaking their mind, but there are legitimate issues of disrupting the education of others/proselytization/disturbing the peace/etc.

I fall on the side of free speech, but I also recognize there may be unintended consequences of that speech.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Nam Shub]

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

Just to clarify, this sounds to me as though half of students actually disagree with the free press section of the first ammendment. The way this is worded it sounds like opinion - far more frightening than so many kids just being poorly educated!

The 60s are dead.

[generationxyu]

When my mother graduated high school in 1969, flag burning was not considered un-American. When I was in high school, we had a discussion in my American Government class (post-911) about flag burning. I was the only person in the class who opposed a constitutional amendment against flag burning. People don't seem to recognize that burning the flag is a statement. I have never burned a flag (except in the Boy Scouts when we retired an old one), but it is still protected speech.

Re:The 60s are dead.

[t_allardyce]

You should be careful like that, they might have decided to burn you for not thinking like them...
Out of interest, what reasons did they give for making an amendment? were they all something like 'because people died for the flag blah blah' bullshit?

Re:The 60s are dead.

[generationxyu]

Out of interest, what reasons did they give for making an amendment? were they all something like 'because people died for the flag blah blah' bullshit?

Pretty much. There's no convincing suburban WASP kids born of suburban WASP parents that there's anything other than god and country.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Tony Hoyle]

I am one of those annoying parents who seeks to get things "banned" from school ... First Amendment only when convenient.

You're doing the same thing though. Can't you see that?

Freedom of speech means the freedom of *anyone* to speak not just those that agree with you.

What is wrong for a day of silence for gay rerpression? It happens. Children should be tought that it is *wrong* to mistreat others because they do not agree with you. You probably wouldn't have any trouble with a day of silence for black repression. Anyone who did have a problem with that would (quite rightly IMO) be branded a racist. See the parallel?

What place does a "discussion" of oral sex have in high school?

That's the best place for it. Parents often don't talk about it because they're squeamish. The only other source of information your children have is their friends - and they *will* talk about it. A lot.

You're trying to deny others right to free speech so you can push your agenda. Using the first amendment as an excuse for doing that is quite frankly sick. You have a right to say what you say, but don't be surprised if everyone just sees the hypocracy and walks away.

No way.

[smcavoy]

You're telling me a horribly underfunded, out of data system for teaching students results in students not knowing one of the most basic rights they have? That just sounds crazy.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[cgranade]

You know my solution: don't go to high school. I didn't, and homeschooled instead. Currently, I'm a college student with a 3.6-3.7 GPA (depends on how many xfer credits are counted) and in the honors program. I have a healthy respect for my rights, and for my freedoms. I cannot but help but reaffirm my hatred of public schools by this article.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[grungebox]

You can thank the Supreme Court for that. Schools were allowed newspaper censorship as a result of a 1985 case concerning a newspaper wanting to publish an article about teen pregnancy. The case is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. Some more info can be found here.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[immel]

I'm going to have to agree on this one. Let's look at the study's own "facts", shall we?
The study said that "only" 83% of students thought unpopular views should be expressed.
It then compared this to 99% of principals and 97% of teachers with the same opinion.

Wake up and smell the Bawls! Comparing the interpretation of the 1st amendment of people who have not graduated from high school to the interpretation of teachers and administrators who have all gone to college (Including no doubt some history teachers with American history degrees) makes for a biased survey.

It is also the nature of high school students not to want to express unpopular opinions, at the risk of becoming unpopular. I'll bet the a good deal of the 17% of students against unpopular expression are the "popular" kids who are used to always getting their views expressed.

Doonesbury

[Aexia]

About 13-14 years ago, when Bush was proposing an anti-flag burning ammendment, ran a Sunday cartoon with an American flag and a warning that under the ammendment, it would be illegal for people to throw out or destroy the cartoon.

Yet somehow (reduex)

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people seem to group all these diverse groups into one single group to make an arguement. When, in fact, not a single one of these groups has any intent of doing all the things. Call us back when your paranoia fit is over, ok?

Is it really the student's fault?

[Kaisum]

Unfortunately I happen to be one of the parameters in this statistic, the problem is that the students are stupid. They don't feel the need to discover the truth, they just sit back and accept what they perceive to be the truth. Though the students aren't the only fault in this, where could they have learned this suppression of rights? The parents. I'm not saying all parents are stupid but this crap has to come from somewhere, most students aren't bright enough to gather their own information so they just take what mommy and daddy inject into their skulls to be carved in stone.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[dosius]

English classes where I went to school, essays were graded mostly on layout (how closely you matched the MLA stylesheet).

Moll.

As a high school student...

[TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R]

...I can say that, from my experience, this study can't be far off. Half the kids in my class have absolutely no clue about our country, except that it is the best one, always and forever, and can do no wrong. They have no clue about their rights, and care more about cell phones and cars than liberty and civic duty. They can't tell you the difference between the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, but could blab for hours about the latest fad TV show. Most of my peers make me sick.

Also, I agree with another comment about how teachers grade your opinion, not your work. This totally happened with my english teacher last year. But, on a more hopeful note, I do see some teachers who try to encourage radical ideas like "free thought", and who de-sanitize curriculum/textbooks (ironically, most of them teach the hybred history/civics courses we have at my school- go figure). But, sadly, most are more worried about their kids getting good enough test scores for them to keep their jobs.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[DrCash]

My high school got around that issue. Several students published an underground newspaper that the school didn't have any control over. It was called the, "Lubricated Trojan." Of course, the school's mascot was the Trojans,... ;-)

Even the name of that paper would never have gotten approved by the principal! But it was interesting reading nonetheless,... ;-)

Duh.

[jimthev]

The students are answering based on their experience. School newspapers, School internet access, School society is not the same as that outside of school.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Mycroft999]

witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."

This is a legal concept frequently used in the "real" world known as "The hand of one, is the hand of all." This concept is usually applied to a small group of people in the circumstance where it is obvious that one of them has perpetrated a crime, but no one steps forth to accept responsibility or point out the guilty party. For example, lock six people in a room for an hour. Open the door to find one of them murdered. Without any testimony or confession from the remaining five, they would all be charged with murder.

Its use with a classroom sized group of children is stretching the idea well beyond reasonable limits. With that in mind however, I have to say it is not a form of terrorism at all but more accurately authoritarianism.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Even that isn't enough. Several students have gotten in trouble for critisizing the school on their own website made using their own computers on their own time. I think it was later reversed due to the threat of a lawsuit though.

Public freedom vs private right

[RmanB17499]

But, then, lots of people also confuse the 1st amendment and think because of it one can say anything they would like about a private party.

The First Amendment provides only protection against your speech, thoughts, and print when the government is a party. Your right to speak up, against, or disparage a private third party whether it's Microsoft, McDonalds, or Coke is severely restricted. As it should be. I wouldn't want someone out there spreading untruths about me.

But the government is held to a higher standard. I could always say Bush is a criminal or whatever. Since Bush is a public figure (politician) and holds the Office of the President of the USG he is subject to the highest duty: he owes me the duty to print almost anything about him.

And just because something is deemed secret doesn't prevent its publication. See the Pentagon Papers case (NY Times v. United States)
But to call Microsoft or Bill Gates a criminal without proper evidence would be an invitation to a huge lawsuit.

That's a huge difference in Free Speech that many people easily forget in their haste to demonize others.

Re:Public freedom vs private right

[RmanB17499]

Sorry for the bad link! New York Times v. the United States http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/g oodsb1.htm

They don't appriciate thier rights.

[Demon-Xanth]

It's hard to appriciate your rights if you never have to use them.

When Vietnam was going on, the first amendment became quite important.

When Rockefeller was able to get a governer to send in a state militia to force miners back to work, and that militia opened fire on the miners with machine guns (new device) and then burned thier tent city down with families still in the tents. The right to bear arms made the difference as tons of people were flocking to defend the miners, so the preident stepped in and sent the national army to break up the event and essentially kick the state militia out of there.

Either use it or lose it.

I'm a gun toting redneck/geek that's a freedom loving eagle scout. I consider myself the kind of person that this country needs more of. Though there isn't enough people like me to stand up and say "WTF?" when something is odviously wrong. People are comfortable to hide behind a flag and the banner of patriotism while forgetting that this country isn't a government, but a civilization. The government is for the people, not the other way around.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're saying that the First Amendment can be overridden by whoever is directly in charge, be that the principal, chief editor, or even the one paying the salaries if they don't see it as in their interest...

Thus the ideas conveyed can always be controlled by who pays your bills...

I think you said more than you bargained for.

Politically incoherent

[rumblin'rabbit]

The very term "political correctness" is an abomination. It explicitly assumes that there is a type of politics that is correct, and that academia is the possessor of this knowledge.

That in itself is arrogant but tolerable. But when schools and other institutions started forcing this political belief upon the general population, principally through the threat of denial of education and other opportunities, that it became "fascism through other means".

You may not like Fox News, but people at least have the choice to follow them or not. That hasn't always been the case with PC.

Re:Politically incoherent

[TheOldFart]

.
The very term "political correctness" is an abomination. It explicitly assumes that there is a type of politics that is correct

No, it doesn't. Your sentiment is correct but not the definition (I especially liked the fascism analogy btw). It means something that may not be accurate but it is politically acceptable. Acceptable to all regardless of their believe systems or points of view, which is utopia. Some one above made a good analogy with Draino and Koolaid.

The system is tilted on both extremes. The real deficit (and main problem) is the lack of something in between, otherwise known as "common sense".

Re:Politically incoherent

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Its like profanity.

Christian fundementalist for example, will absolutely go apoplectic hearing "ass" or "Fuck" or "dick" on television.

Changing these to "behind" "sex" and "penis" is their form of political correctness.

Just how it is.

Re:Politically incoherent

[dvdeug]

The very term "political correctness" is an abomination. It explicitly assumes that there is a type of politics that is correct, and that academia is the possessor of this knowledge.

That's illogical, as academia didn't create the term; political correctness has always been a derogratory term used by its opponents.

Political correctness is also much like using the term racist in an argument; it's more a term of insult than meaning. Is it rude, or unPC to call someone a whore? a bitch? Mrs. Zaccaro? I would consider it horribly rude to address her as Mrs. Zaccaro instead of Ms. Ferraro, but others would consider it just a PC complaint. Which is why just calling something PC isn't enough.

Re:Politically incoherent

[commodoresloat]

What the hell kind of school do you go to that "forces" political correctness upon the student body? I teach at one of the most liberal campuses in California (which means it is probably one of the most liberal in the US), and I don't know of any courses where "political correctness" is "forced" on people "through the threat of denial of education and other opportunities." I may be a liberal myself but I actually agree with the right wingers that leftists who force their politics down people's throats are a terrible threat to academic freedom, but I just don't see this happening as often as the talking heads on Fox News (or the typing heads on frontpagemagazine.com) claim. Political correctness is a red herring -- rather than actually have to refute opinions that they disagree with, right wingers would rather whine about how unfair it is that they're being "forced" to learn something new. Get over it.

Re:Politically incoherent

[rumblin'rabbit]

Fortunately PC has died down in recent years, but its trangressions are well documented. Playboy Magazine, hardly a right-wing organization, reported on many of these during the 1990's.

But even today, many campuses have policies limiting free speech. For example, there are often rules against giving offense to groups. Of course, they are rather selective about which groups they mean. Homosexuals, definitely. Young republicans, not so much (not that they need it).

Recommended reading: Kindly Inquisitors.

Re:Politically incoherent

[tomcode]

You gotta remember where PC originated. Say, for example, you and I are having lunch in a crowded diner in the deep South in the 1960s, talking about "My girlfriend who is black." Forks drop, silence falls, and all eyes are on me as the patrons wonder who will follow me home that night.

Now, take the same situation, but instead we talk about "My girlfriend who is African-American." It is less likely that non-prying ears will pick this up. Most will just hear "Blah blah American" and go about their business.

PC began as a defense against bigotry. Only later did it become a self-parody, and then a derogatory comment. The implication now, of course, that such convoluted talk is unnecessary and therefore ludicrous. Let's hope so.

Conservatives who rail against PC attitudes would do well to remember this.

Re:Politically incoherent

[commodoresloat]

I don't agree with speech codes either, but what the hell do they have to do with this discussion? The issue at hand is whether "politically correct" professors are "forcing" their politics on their students, not whether the universities have rules against shouting the "N-word".

Re:Politically incoherent

[Mr2001]

Christian fundementalist for example, will absolutely go apoplectic hearing "ass" or "Fuck" or "dick" on television.

Changing these to "behind" "sex" and "penis" is their form of political correctness.

All too true.

"Political correctness" is just a new term... a politically correct term, if you will... for "euphemism". It's the idea that although it's still OK to talk about certain things, it's not OK to use certain phrases to describe it.

Re:Politically incoherent

[Jackmon]

You may not like Fox News, but people at least have the choice to follow them or not. That hasn't always been the case with PC.

What does that even mean? PCism is a silly thing in as much as it attempts to water down one's words. But who doesn't have the choice to speak in a politically correct way? You might get verbally reprimanded by someone for not being sensitive, but it's that person's right to tell you what they think too.

Re:Politically incoherent

[rumblin'rabbit]

At times during the 1990's PC got very ugly. One student was publically reprimanded as being anti-gay because he wanted a new residence room when his roommate put up homo-erotic posters. Male students were called rapists for sleeping with consenting co-eds who had been drinking but were not excessively drunk. And disagreeing with any racially identifiable group often got one labelled a bigot.

These were the extreme cases, but they were not silly. There were students who lost the chance for an education over political correctness.

Don't forget

[LPetrazickis]

...93.2% breathed air.

From watching TV and reading the papers...

[ConceptJunkie]

I'd say more than 50% of adults, including many in Congress and the judiciary, don't understand the First Amendment either.

That high school kids don't understand it is a given. There are so few people who can explain it.

RTFStudy!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

While the issue presented in the article is certainly valid some of the statistics are presented in a slanted manner. For example, a higher percentage of students felt that the school administration should not be allowed to control what is published in school newspapers when compared to the percentage who believed that the government should not be allowed to regulate newspapers. Also there was a high number of don't know answers throughout the survey. Combine the don't know-don't care answers with a couple percentage worth of intentional wrong answers and you get a high percent error, probably in the double digit range. While some of the results cited as keypoints may push the message, it ultimately hurts your argument when the facts that form the foundation are less than solid.

High School students....

[carburaettorr]

Think!!!

C'mon ppl get real

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Since the principal is an agent of the government, why would a policeman as an agent of the government be any different?

The Irony of Democracy: Citizens aren't democratic

[Futurepower(R)]

The book The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics made the point more than 30 years ago that only a small percentage of Americans actually believe in democratic principles.

Unfortunately, all the Amazon reviews are of very poor quality, other than saying they liked the book.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[DirePickle]

I graduated from high school in 2001, and we had a 'Government' class that sounds like what you're describing as Civics. Of course, I went to a private high school, so maybe things are different there.

Mod Parent 5 INSIGHTFULL!

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to get the McFacts out!
There is no better test of howw fucking stupid someone is then if they use the "McFacts" to justify the coffee lawsuit.
I am so fucking pissed you can only get lukewarm coffee most places now.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Spoken like a true desk-job inhabitant. Let's put you and all these teachers through manual labor and see how much you'll appreciate your cushy jobs when you return to them. It's winter, jackass. Look outside. I see people doing work. It's fucking awful for them. Compared to them, and the raft of people who are now condemned to manual labor without job security, A TEACHING JOB IS COMPLETELY CUSHY.

Now go suffer in the corner, covering your whack-job head and moaning at how difficult your desk job is. And get a fucking sense of perspective, yuppie bitch. You could be getting a forklift dropping a 1800LB crate on your leg. I don't see too many pieces of heavy and dangerous machinery in the average office.

Re:Two things

[LetterRip]

I believe you have linked to the wrong study (while it is on the First Amendment and the media it doesn't ask the same questions as this study), the results and questions refered to in the article are here

LetterRip

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad form, mods. Here comes a poster with actual proof that the grandparent was wrong, and you moderate him into oblivion within minutes.

Somewhat ironic in a story about freedom of the press, no?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Rorschach1]

That's what underground papers are for. I was involved with one in high school - had the backing of a certain English teacher, and even some funding from more open minded types.

I think the environment's going to be a little more hostile toward such things today. I remember one issue we published with a 'how-to' section - one page was a how-to on performing an at-home abortion, the facing page was on how to firebomb your local abortion clinic. We obviously weren't advocating that anyone do either, but people in those days seemed to have enough common sense to realize that and see that we were trying to make a point. Today, you're likely to get expelled and reported to the FBI for inciting terrorist acts.

Re:Two things

[Unordained]

No. Your links point to the results of a 1000-phone-call survey of all ages (see age distribution at bottom of results). The results are still interesting (and made me very sad,) but they are not the same as those the grandparent was asking about.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[GigsVT]

You realize that something like 89% of kids go to public schools in the US, not private, right?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Ironsides]

Just to clarify, this sounds to me as though half of students actually disagree with the free press section of the first ammendment. The way this is worded it sounds like opinion - far more frightening than so many kids just being poorly educated!

I think we need to find out what parts of it that they think go to far.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which part? Religion, Speech/Press, Assembly or Petitioning? I can skew that quote so many ways that it is quite meaning less.

Even the ACLU didn't understand the 1st...

[DAldredge]

What the ACLU used to say about the 1st.

""Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."- as quoted by the ACLU

Something in the passage above is amiss, has been omitted, replaced with ( "...") in the ACLU's recitation of this important amendment. Have a look at the original wording of the first amendment below and see if you can see what the ACLU left out.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm

What it says now

"It is no accident that freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society."

Re:Even the ACLU didn't understand the 1st...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you give no CITATION for this. We are just supposed to believe your stupid, lying ass.

Especially sad given the internet

[BrianRoach]

This is even more depressing when you consider that more than ever before in our history we have the ability to "self-publish" - via the internet.

Post to a newsgroup/forum/discussion list. Start a blog. Build your own website.

All of these options are within reach of more people than a printing press has ever been. Yet our kids aren't taught enough to realize how important this is.

- Brian Roach

What about seperation of church and state?

[nberardi]

What about the question "Is there such a thing as seperation of church and state?", because this is a big one that always comes up. Because a ton of people I talk too of all ages thinks there is a seperation defined in the first amendment.

In actuallity there is no seperation defined in the first amendment, or any other amendment, just the restriction of the government enacting laws that limit the worship of a citizen. (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.billofrights.html#amendmenti)

It's just certain people in the government, now, that like to censor the use of churches during politics, because they know their base doesn't attend or beleive in what people that go to chruch beleive. But I am guessing because this is being reported on CNN that the group that conducted this research blatently ignored the most disgusting representation of the first amendment that has been going on for the last 50 years. There are those out there that have even convicned judges to enact laws to take down religious based artifacts from court houses because they violate the first amendment.

I admit that it wasn't until I was out of college until I really started taking my constitutional rights seriously, so don't blame this on the students. It is the teachers fault, and the teachers of the teachers, that are really to blame for pandering to teachers unions, which tend to lean in the direction that doesn't usually support the first amendment in it's entirity.

Re:What about seperation of church and state?

[Anonymous Coward]

most disgusting representation of the first amendment that has been going on for the last 50 years. There are those out there that have even convicned judges to enact laws to take down religious based artifacts from court houses because they violate the first amendment.

They don't violate any admendment but it is convient that fundies are yelling persecution while this is happening. Makes me wonder if fundies aren't starting these lawsuits just to appear as victims to get special rights and force fundie Christianity on the rest of us just because some book said so. It's not an attack on religion. Many people can be religious without having a minister tell them how to live their lives. Afterall, god is everywhere. I'm a Buddhist by the way.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorta' like how all the other 'approval' poles work, then?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[madro]

If the school is funded by tax dollars, then the principal is indeed an agent of the government, and is thus subject to the first amendment. Private schools are another matter.

A principal does have a competing duty to maintain discipline. The guideline in Hazelwood is that censorship may occur only to prevent "material and substantial disruption".

Instead of sponsored speech, you may be thinking of commercial speech, which is its own legal world. High school newspapers are, AFAIK, supposed to encourage journalism, not public relations.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[dmauro]

Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams. If you did not give the teacher what they wanted you were given a poor grade. It wasn't until college (and I remember our second semester English professor being appalled) that I was able to write how I felt about a topic and back it up with real information. The professor would grade you on your research and your proof and not how he/she particularly felt the topic should be supported.

How can we expect high-school aged kids to think that they should be given a chance to practice their First Amendment rights when they are under the constant force feeding of information?

If you had the chance to see the new Hal Hartley film, The Girl from Monday, I am sure you were laughing with me when one of the main characters was found guilty of a crime and sentenced to "two years hard labor teaching high school."

My apologies to all the high school teachers out there that are trying to make a difference, but what was most funny about this line was how well it reflected the level of quality of my high school teachers.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[Anonymous Coward]

It was actually ony about 7% against unpopular expression. The other 10% were "dont know". Factor in margin of error and it is not as bad as the report makes it out to be.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[misha.sokolov]

"Rather than trying to make high school more like real life, we discovered it was more efficient to make real life more like high school." an artificial world controlled purely by the government.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[michaelggreer]

I don't think your example is apt. Your complaint that "governments routinely apply laws to the entire population... due to the irresponsibility of the few" is called the Rule of Law. Laws are always applied to the entire population, if they can be called just at all. Laws are not about "bad guys" and "good guys."
Also, the parent is talking about a class being punished for the actions of one. Banning pot is not punitive: it is prohibitive. Very different.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Pole-land!

U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment

[frovingslosh]

U.S. Law Makers Don't Understand the Second Ammendment.

Re:U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment

[J'raxis]

U.S. lawmakers don't understand any of the Amendments, or perhaps the entire Constitution, except maybe this guy. Most of them seem to operate by "Pass any law we can and let the courts sort it out." They see their power as pretty much unlimited and the Constitution merely as an obstacle to get around with sufficiently obfuscated phrasing or hair-splitting, and not as something that they're supposed to protect and uphold.

Re:U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment

[frovingslosh]

Agreed. But it strikes me as self serving that the press (even Slashdot) seems to focus on preserving the First Amendment, while the vast bulk of the press not only ignores incursions on may other amendments but actually encourages and supports it. And then they show surprise at loss of understanding of the Bill of Rights. By having this article focus on just the first amendment, Slashdot did a disservice to the others that are at even greater jeporady.

Re:U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell did you manage to misspell "amendment" when it was in the title of your post?

I'd like to see foreign-born results

[nsasch]

How many Americans(high school students and adults) could pass a citizenship test? Does anybody know sample questions from a citizenship test, I'm sure quite a few adults would get quite a few questions wrong. Foreigners are required to pass, even though American-born citizens would probably fail.

Re:I'd like to see foreign-born results

[RmanB17499]

Welcome to the Naturalization Self Test! To begin the self test, click the Generate Questions button.

Student Performance

[prurientknave]

I'm impressed they didn't grunt or chew up the page with text of 1st ammendment on it. Heck! it's impressive they can read!

I think I'll seriously consider moving to India for their freedom, atleast it's easy to disappear into a thicket of a billion people.

Violation of First Amendment Right to Expression

[J-B0nd]

Just last week, my younger brother in middle school told me about an incident where the school prohibited wearing clothing with American flags on it on May 5th for Cinco de Mayo, with the potential punishment being suspension.

I couldn't believe that the administration thought the American flag would be offensive. I plan on calling the school and complaining about this, and would like some advice on what to say.

I was planning on bringing up the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court Case. Can anyone else give me some advice?

Bring on Hasselhoff

[jeffx]

These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,

So now K.I.T.T has a new purpose. Bring on David Hasselhoff.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[LaCosaNostradamus]

During the 1990s, I lived in Massachusetts. I had plenty of occasions to visit Ohio then, and I returned to Ohio in 1997 to the present day. I know exactly what's going on. Weapon confiscation was only right around the corner. Since then, the people have been taking back their right to keep and bear, and now Ohio has a concealed carry law that frankly annoyed the people in the state capitol ... as if I gave a flying fuck. As for Mass., I'm sure they still have their big signs along the turnpike stating that bringing a gun into the state is a felony ... again, as if I gave a shit, but it only demonstrates how little Massholes cared about the US Constitution.

And don't hold up Texas as some sort of shining state. What are the statistics of police seizures in Texas? Nationally, seizure went through the fucking roof for the entire nation. Texas has police with budgets too, and I'm sure they just loved the income from seizing people's properties. For instance, in Texas, if you're caught with drugs in your car, what happens to your car when you're arrested? In Ohio, the same event results in the Gestapo simply taking your car and then auctioning it off, which is unreasonable seizure by any measure.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

"Basically, everything being taught now comes from a point of view of no judgement calls. If there is something open to interpretation, either it's not taught, or it's taught from a historical context as opposed to the 'meaning' or 'message' of said lesson."

Hmmm.... sounds like a page out of FoxNews rules of news: Not fact-based, but opinion-based.

"The culture wars are over, welcome to the information wars"

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[FLEB]

I think it was later reversed due to the threat of a lawsuit though.

So the system is still as intact as it was? Just because someone in power does something illegal, that doesn't negate the law, they just hold themselves out to reprimand or reversal.

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

i wonder how many of the high school kids taking this survey were stoned at the time

Flag Burning

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's what I've never understood. It's not an act of desecration to burn a flag. You're supposed to burn any flag that has ever touched the ground. End of story.

By the way, if you want a fun time, try pointing this out to people at your 4th of July* gathering. Those teenagers who are draping a flag on their shoulders and sitting down - those flags should be burnt.

*I do this 3 days before Americans.

Re:Flag Burning

[windex82]

I recall reading somewhere that when the flag has become old and worn should be burnt on flag day.

The touching the ground issue is simply not true, however wearing it in itself is a big no no.

Full list of hanging, displaying, and disposal guidelines are here: http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

For the lazy a few snippits:
Section 8d. reads, "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel."
My flag touched the ground. Do I need to destroy it?
No. You should, of course, try to avoid having the flag touch the ground. But if it does, you should correct the situation immediately. If the flag has been dirtied, you should clean it by hand with a mild soap solution and dry it well before returning it to use.
My flag is old and ready to be retired. What should I do?
Section 8k of the Flag Code (see below) states, "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." We recommend that you contact your local VFW Chapter and ask them for help properly disposing of your flag. And be sure to consider providing a small donation to them for their assistance. Or you can contact your local Elks Lodge (who created the idea of Flag Day, established officially by President Truman, himself a member of the Elks) or the American Legion. Some Boy Scout and Girl Scout troups also can provide this service.

I could understand the voting thing....

[rbird76]

...but since teenagers apparently are capable of understanding what they do enough to be executed for it, they probably are responsible enough to vote for those that will do it to them.

And if they don't know enough but government believes they should have and holds them responsible for it anyway, perhaps it might have taken better care to teach them what they should have known in the first place.

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm living on the wrong side of an Ayn Rand novel.

Re:I could understand the voting thing....

[YrWrstNtmr]

...but since teenagers apparently are capable of understanding what they do enough to be executed for it,

That only happens in exceptional cases. Sad that happens at all, but there are "kids" with enough of a criminal record that they should be treated as adults.

perhaps it might have taken better care to teach them what they should have known in the first place.

I believe I said that.
Maybe there should be a test for under 18's. Pass this, and you can vote. Or, wait til you are 18.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[renderhead]

Because the school newspaper acts as a representative of the school, and the school is run by the principal, he was not acting as a government censor but as the chief editor.

You point out that the taxpayers are funding the paper. This is true, but it doesn't change that the principal was well within his authority. Assuming this was a typical public school, he was hired by the school board which was in turn elected by the voters. It's the principal's job, regarding the paper, to make sure that the paper is consistent with the wishes of the taxpayers. He made the (probably correct) decision that a majority of the community's taxpayers would rather not have that article published.

When a school official acts to control what goes into a school paper, they are acting as a representative of the "shareholders", the taxpaying members of the community. They don't have to be fair and unbiased, they just have to not offend the people who pay the bills. It's no different than any major news network. The head of CBS can veto a story because it would offend a major sponsor, or because it would offend enough viewers that it could cause problems for the network. For better or worse, this is not censorship, it is self-regulation.

Don't waste the precious learning time of kids

[t_allardyce]

Things US school kids are forced to learn, practically at gun point:

-The pledge of allegiance, recited fascist style
-That evolution is just a theory damnit!
-The name of every single (male) US president

Things US school kids probably should be taught at an early age:

-The Bill of Rights, from memory
-The policies of the 3 major political parties
-Where a few countries are

Re:Don't waste the precious learning time of kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Things US school kids are forced to learn, practically at gun point:
-The name of every single (male) US president

Condi in '08!

Things US school kids probably should be taught at an early age:
-The policies of the 3 major political parties

-How to count
-How to troll Slashdot as well as you do

Re:Don't waste the precious learning time of kids

[slothman32]

Technically evolution is a theory. It just matches so well that most people, including me, think of it as fact.
What is the 3rd party? Only 2 dominate Congress. The other 2 branches are even more lopsided. Darn dualoply.
I know where all kinds of countries are. Canada is all tucked away down there. "Rand Mcnally" is where people where hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people. Prussia has autogyros to Siam all the time.
Simpsons notwithstanding, "not with stand ing?" I do know where Chad, Trinidad, and Georgia are. As well as the capitals of many. Unfortunately since I am smarter than all, except people who read Slashdot or listen to them, then that is the exception.

Re:Don't waste the precious learning time of kids

[t_allardyce]

suck my dick AC bitch. I whore karma and dump it on trolls like you!

Re:Don't waste the precious learning time of kids

[t_allardyce]

I say 3 parties because bipartisan politics is a bad stale thing and something that the US, UK and many other countries need to get out of. Kids need to be made aware at an early age that there are in fact more than two - you could teach them about all of them but I think once you have gotten them used to 3 they will be more likely to think 'hm I wonder what the others are like'.

Yes its a theory, but the actual logic behind it is obviously true: things do evolve, the question is does this explain life on earth full. Unfortunately some people of the Christian right-wing category have miss-understood this and taken it on themselves to deny that evolution exists at all.

Why should they care?

[Greg@RageNet]

Why should they care about the first amendment? The kids have been taught that the first amendment doesn't really apply if what you say might offend someone. None of the other amendments in the bill of rights seems to get much consideration either.

How many people support the second amendment here?

All we have to do is label someone a terrorist or pirate or pedophile (or whatever the boogeyman of the day is) to circumvent the 4th through 8th amendments.

The 'commerce clause' has beaten the 9th and 10th amendments to a pulp for years..

Lets start putting soldiers in our houses (3rd amendment) so we can finish wiping our backsides with this archaic document.

-- G

LIGHTEN UP --They're only in HS

[Anonymous Coward]

Students in HS and earlier are trained to give the answer the teacher wants to hear, rather than what is truly right in their own minds. It's not until they get to college that they begin to hear that stuff they learned in from K thru 12 was often watered down or just wrong. So don't worry...they will come around, just as /.ers and most other adults have. Poll them again when they are about 22 and compare.

Re:LIGHTEN UP --They're only in HS

[trisight]

Habits have already formed by this point. Parents should be teaching their children about rights and freedoms.

It's obvious kids are getting their information from too many tv programs and liberal bias instead of their parents.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[RobertB-DC]

Q: What about underground or independent student publications? Are they protected from censorship?
A: Absolutely. Although public schools can establish reasonable restrictions as to the time, place and manner of distribution of underground publications, they cannot absolutely forbid their distribution on school grounds. Like school-sponsored publications that are forums, a school must show substantial disruption before they can censor an independent publication.

For me, that decision came about three years too late. My senior year, in 1985, I published an underground newspaper at my small-town school. I used my dad's typewriter, made copies at a copy place in another town, and passed out only a handful of copies to my friends. That was Wednesday.

Friday morning, I was called into the principal's office. He had a copy on his desk, with my name written on the front (in the receptionist's handwriting, strangely enough). He tried to get me to divulge the identity of the other contributor. I refused that request, but his threat to expel me if I printed another issue. I think that was the time I spent three days in in-school suspension, too.

A friend of mine's dad, a lawyer, advised me that two months from graduation isn't the best time to rock the boat.

In the end:

* The journalism teacher, who had no involvement in my adventure, was fired/quit.

* The school rules were rewritten to explicity ban underground newspapers.

* The principal never figured out who wrote the article.

* The girl he blamed, a fellow senior, got a kick out of being thought the co-conspirator.

* The girl who actually wrote the article (which exhorted students to listen to their teachers), a sophomore, moved to a private school.

* The principal retired a couple of years later.

I'll have to scan and transcribe the paper someday... but my 18-year-old earnest ramblings about teens and sex look a lot different through these 38-year-old eyes.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Fulcrum of Evil]

How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?

Write the feature anyway. It's not like the principal has editorial control. As a last resort, publish it yourself and distribute it in school.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[FLEB]

Charged, perhaps, but less likely convicted. Granted, that still imposes hardships, but that's more a matter of how the accused-but-not-guilty are treated, not a matter of mass punishment.

The Bill of Riights IS the first ten amendments

[Wee]

Also, the first 10 articles of the Bill or Rights are NOT amendments, they are declatory articles as stated in the preamble of the Bill of Rights.

Where do you get that wacky idea? The first ten amendments make up what is called the Bill of Rights. The preamble is for the original 7 Articles (which you can read, along with the preamble, here); it has nothing to do with the Bill of Rigths. Unless the National Archives and Records Administration also can't be trusted. I mean, even though they actually have the original document, they might be getting their history of it wrong. Maybe. Anything's possible, I guess...

Seriously though, the Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1789. Twelve amendments to the Constitution were proposed on September 25, 1789 -- ten passed. Those first ten amendments are actually genuine, according-to-Hoyle amendments to the Constitution. They were proposed (instead of altering the original document) to ensure that the "vague" wording of the original articles couldn't be abused by a tyrannical federal government to trample on the rights of the citizenry. They are collectively called the "Bill of Rights" because of these guarantees.

The NARA article A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution has a lot of good information in it. You seem like someone who might be interested in reading it. What better way to "Get Learned" than to get information straight from the official source?

-B

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Rangsk]

So here's what you do if you really want to get the word out - take the article, print it yourself, and hand it out to students just off of school grounds. The principal can't do anything about it, and it actually gives the article much more edge, since it was "Banned by the school! Read what the principal doesn't want you to read!"

What about adults?

[atomic-penguin]

I believe most U.S. adults have a hard time understanding the First amendment as well.

Just for example: the claim there is a separation between church and state, which is not to be found in the U.S. Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". It is not quite the same thing. I know the article is concerning the freedom of speech, but there is more to the first amendment than just freedom of speech/press. Just my two cents.

Exception on flag burning

[LoverOfJoy]

Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not.

The urban legend when I was a kid was that if the flag touched the ground you had to burn it.

You're wrong...read your own article.

[katharsis83]

You're wrong.

From your own article:, "The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime."

Bin Laden doesn't like Saddam because it directly opposes what he wants: a new Middle East governed by an Islamic fundamentalists theocracy. Saddam represented a direct contradiction to that - Saddam hated Islamic fundamentalistm because he was afraid it undermined his authority with the people. Look, if you were in total control of a country, would you WANT your subjects to believe that there is a HIGHER power, with moral laws above YOUR laws? Think about it.

Sorry for this off topic post, but anyone who thinks Saddam had ANY part in 9/11 or that Osama and Saddam were allies has been watching too much Fox News or is too gullible to filter out the neo-con propoganda.

Re:You're wrong...read your own article.

[back_pages]

It is YOU who are wrong!

Our enemies are allied against us! They have always been allies, and they are all united in their efforts to destroy us! They seek to kill your children with vaguery and also they are united! United together, and they have always been allies!

All kidding aside, I do think you're wrong. You're trying to reason with someone and summarize with:
Sorry for this off topic post, but anyone who thinks Saddam had ANY part in 9/11 or that Osama and Saddam were allies has been watching too much Fox News or is too gullible to filter out the neo-con propoganda.

If your summary is accurate, the rest of your argument is an attempt to teach pigs to sing. Don't bother. Just fill'em up with contra-propaganda. Example: I'll never refer to John Fascist Ashcroft again in my life without the word Fascist. I don't need to explain it and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate - the effect is even better this way.

Re:You're wrong...read your own article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if you were in total control of a country, would you WANT your subjects to believe that there is a HIGHER power, with moral laws above YOUR laws?

You're wrong about Saddam's political strategy. Have a look sometime at what's written on Iraq's flag.

Re:You're wrong...read your own article.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong about Saddam's political strategy. Have a look sometime at what's written on Iraq's flag.

(It's a quote from the Quran) That's just empty populism of Saddam's. Nobody would claim that the writing "In God we trust" in American money bills means America is ruled by fanatic Christian fundamentalists.

Even though it is.

Re:You're wrong...read your own article.

[ezeri]

I'll never refer to John Fascist Ashcroft again in my life without the word Fascist. I don't need to explain it and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate - the effect is even better this way.
And that is why 90% of the country will continue to ignore you and other liberals, I personaly agree with alot of the attacks on the administration for things like the Patriot Act. But when I see someone like you who can't use John Ashcroft with out Fascist, I will imediately distrust anything you have to say, because you have shown yourself to be an extremist. Your the lefts version of Ann Culter, and just like no one takes her seriously, no one will take you seriously.

Of course...

[daveschroeder]

...this sits at -1, because it's the truth.

No one wants to have an honest debate about any of these topics.

How can we have any type of debate - much less an honest one - about foreign policy when these liberal pseudo-intellectual blog-readers think, quite literally, that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, or anyone remotely conservative/Republican, or, God forbid, *neoconservative*, are the worst kind of evil incarnate, whose only wish is to continue lining their pockets at the expense of US troops, and especially the "brownskins"? That there are no other considerations at all, that Panislamic radicalism isn't real (and if it is, it's exclusively the fault of the US and no one else), that "conservative" automatically equals "ultra right wing fundamentalist Bible thumper", and only liberal/progressive people know what's best, and everyone else, ESPECIALLY people who voted for Bush, are either complete and utterly moronic victims of neocon propaganda, OR the greedy fat cats who want more riches at the expense of the rest of the world?

Fuck, these people talk about *Bush* having a "black and white" view? Damn. I've said it before: these are the most closed-minded "open-minded" people on earth.

And it's precisely because of this fucking rampant nonsensical yammering on the internet that people don't know left from right or up from down and read everything that reinforces this idea they've internalized for whatever reason that anything having to do with corporations, business, or conservative policy is EVIL, and only liberal/progressive/quasi-socialist ideas are good; that military action is never proper (unless instantiated by a liberal), and ESPECIALLY any preemptive action; that there is only one side to the story: theirs, and they can throw to the wind the concept that 25 million people are FREE, and that this freedom is not "imposed", and indeed cannot be, because freedom is the default state; that it is acceptable for the United States to fight for its own interests and those of its allies, and that there are very real threats that have been growing in this region for the last two decades that Europe chooses to ignore (or, possibly let the US handle so they can simultaneously have their problems solved while also not looking like the bad guy, and having a responsible party like the US to blame for any problems, to boot); and I could go on.

If people have any question WHY we are in Iraq, they should read this recent post, as I believe it is my least long-winded writing on the topic.

These leftist bloggers that have so captivated this loony left want all the rights and privileges of "journalism" - indeed, many paint themselves as the only TRUE journalists, while all the "corporate" media is simply the collective mouthpiece of the Bush administration - but want none of the responsibility. To this argument, they may hide in the refuge of "Oh, but we never said we were journalists! It's just our opinion! We have no obligation to do or say anything!" but they know damned well they're influencing people with their incendiary, extremely one-sided rhetoric, that ignores the fortunes of millions of people, including our own.

We would never have the collective national will for a World War II-scale military campaign again. If today's technology existed then, there would have been hundreds of "Abu Ghraibs", and I shudder to think of what kind of despotic totalitarian world we live in had we not the will to fight for what is right, not only for ourselves, but for all people: and that is freedom. Liberals, especially slashdot readers, will no doubt laugh endlessly at this, thinking about their last lame list of failed US military actions, or travesties they believe were prosecuted by the US in the name of profits, or some other liberal vomit du jour. Or perhaps they'll choke on the hypocrisy of things like simultaneously blasting the Bush administration for sending troops to Iraq - then saying we don't have ENOUGH tr

Re:Of course...

[Leo McGarry]

As to "why we're in Iraq," I think that this quote sums it up nicely:

If what happened [on Sunday] in Iraq is screwing up the world, then we've got to figure out how to screw it up faster.

(Seen on the same blog I cited above.)

Re:Of course...

[dogbowl]

MOD parent up please

Re:Of course...

[thrash242]

If only I had mod points...excellent post.

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ... are the worst kind of evil incarnate, whose only wish is to continue lining their pockets at the expense of US troops, and especially the "brownskins"

That thesis is not mutually exclusive with Islamofascism also being dangerous.

Which is why, in the rest of the world, we were horrified by Bush's "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" speech. If anyone can see a motive for the invasion of Iraq past keeping the American economy propped up by assuring the supply of oil (and, tangentially, making the interests that the Bush family represents billions), please present it to me.

Re:Of course...

[American AC in Paris]

...this sits at -1, because it's the truth.

Heh. Powerful opening, that. "Go ahead and mod me down for saying this, but..."

You say want an honest debate, and yet you go out of your way to insult, belittle and demean those you wish to engage in debate. Fair enough.

Let's debate. We invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction and were poised to use them against the United States. We never found these weapons, and we've given up the search.

Now, let's be honest. Which of the following two scenarios strikes you as most plausible?

1. The WMDs--the hundreds upon hundreds of tons of which we swore were there in Iraq, the WMDs for which the administration said they had concrete physical evidence of their existence, the WMDs that the Secretary of State told the world existed without question--were actually never there. The sole reason for this failure was that our intelligence operations were so fatally flawed that they couldn't even tell their asses from holes in the ground, and our best military and covert intelligence operatives have spent the past decade running around sloshing their dribble cups all over the floor.
2. The weapons were there, the best damn intel agents in the world weren't total fucking lobotomy cases, but we failed to secure them due to a lack of manpower on the ground. It took us weeks to get to some sites, only to find 'em gutted and crawling with looters, for crying out loud. Hence, several hundred tons of military-grade neurotoxins, radiological material, high-grade explosives and god-knows-what-else are floating loose on the black market or are in terrorist hands because we failed to fulfill the primary mission of our invasion.

   On Abu Ghraib: so you're saying that because, in your opinion, we probably commited thousands of acts of sodomy, rape, beating, near-drowning and 'accidental' homocide on prisoners of war back in World War II that it really isn't a big deal for us to continue to sodomize, rape, beat, near-drown and 'accidentally' kill prisoners of war today. Is this correct?

   Finally, a couple questions for you. What are the three biggest mistakes you believe the administration has made, and what have they done to rectify these mistakes? Conversely, what are the three things you think the administration has done the best?

Re:Of course...

[mopower70]

Dude - you need to get the hell out of Madison before your head explodes.

Re:Of course...

[Leo McGarry]

Which is why, in the rest of the world, we were horrified by Bush's "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" speech.

I don't understand. Are you saying that you were distraught that interminable fence-sitting suddenly became unacceptable to the people on the one side of the fence who were under sustained and imminent threat of being murdered by the people on the other side of the fence?

If anyone can see a motive for the invasion of Iraq past keeping the American economy propped up by assuring the supply of oil (and, tangentially, making the interests that the Bush family represents billions), please present it to me.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Re:Of course...

[totipotentsoul]

Even a neocon can remember that Iraq has always balanced Iran, that it was about the worst place to invade (because it was divided yugoslavia style between three different groups, one of which wanted to undermine Turkey by forming Kurdistan, one of which would likely want to join Iran), and that we already had them under our thumb.

I'm a libertarian, but I've sided with liberals more than conservatives in this war.

Re:Of course...

[javiercero]

Which is why you may be even more surprised to know that Iraq has had elections before.... So what is your point?

Was Iraq invaded so that person could vote or because there were WMD's? Just curious, because the argument that you people seem to use to justify the invasion of as SOVEREIGN country on a pre-emptive basis that has lead to the death of tens of thousands of civilians seems to change on an almost weekly basis.

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You expend so much effort to castigate others for strawman attacks, and you do it by making one unbelievably massive and untruthful strawman attack? You, sir, are what is wrong with conservative Americans. You cry and bitch about being oppressed as you horse-whip innocents. In the words of your undoubted hero, "Go fuck yourself."

Re:Of course...

[VojakSvejk]

Congratulations; you put up one hell of a fight against that straw man.

It has not occurred to you that people associate Bush et al with bible thumpers because they can only get and maintain themselves in power by ensuring that "conservative" pundits and electric preachers regularly reassure their fan-base that "the liberal media" is concealing from them the WMD's we all know were found in Iraq after all?

It has not occurred to you that people think this team lies because we were told repeatedly (and simultaneously denied that we were told) that this administration knew he had 'em, knew where they were (and had 8x10 color glossies with circles and arrows) and knew he had em pointed at us? Not suspected, knew.

Or because we were told in every imaginable way that Saddam et al were involved in the attacks of September 11, and that that date never failed to appear in the diatribe justifying the invasion?

Because we have been presented with an ever-shifting soup of justification for the thing, none of which has panned out?

I do like your previous post. Your reasons for us to be in Iraq:

"NOT because of WMD" - damn straight
"BECAUSE we already had a history with Iraq" - huh?
"BECAUSE we have limited resources" - so we couldn't afford to attack somebody better?
"BECAUSE something needs to be done about Panislamic radicalism" - of which there was no more in Iraq than WMD, although I'm having to do a little guesswork to figure out what you think you mean by "panislamic radicalism".

and the new Shiite Republic of Iraq will certainly be the bastion of freedom of religion that you seem to want.

Re:Of course...

[vertinox]

You know, if I ever meet you in a fox hole in Tehran fighting Chinese soldiers around 2007, I'm going to enjoy saying "I told you so".

Re:Of course...

[Leo McGarry]

Iraq has had elections before

No. Wrong. Never. Unless your definition of "election" includes being forced under the threat of imprisonment and torture at the hands of the secret police to write down the name of a murderous dictator who seized power during a coup. I don't consider that an election. Neither does the United States Department of State.

Was Iraq invaded so that person could vote or because there were WMD's? Just curious

Both. There were many reasons why it was both pragmatically necessary and morally imperative to invade Iraq. I'm sorry this troubles you, but at some point you're gonna have to grow up and learn to deal with complexity.

the invasion of as SOVEREIGN country

Iraq was not sovereign. By definition, a country that's ruled by a dictator cannot be considered sovereign. Only legitimate governments are sovereign.

the death of tens of thousands of civilians

You do know that the number you're citing is complete bullshit, right? The official Iraq estimate of the number of noncombatants killed between March 19, 2003 and a few weeks ago is about 7,000. (The number is necessarily a little bit out of date.) That figure comes from official Iraqi morgue records. At least a third of those people were killed by the Fedayeen in Basrah alone. Of the remainder, the vast majority have been murdered by Islamic terrorists in bombings, machine-gun sprees and televised executions.

The number you're citing comes from a widely misreported study in The Lancet. The researchers found that the number of Iraqis civilians (not, repeat not non-combatants, but merely Iraqi citizens who were not in uniform when they were killed) killed since 3/19/03 was anywhere between 9,800 and 198,000. Irresponsible (or maybe just ignorant) journalists just split the difference and reported that "tens of thousands" Iraqis were killed.

This is, in point of fact, absolutely untrue. Just to summarize, it's untrue because (1) since the study was based on simple extrapolation, the margin of error on the Lancet study was so wide as to make the study useless, and (2) the Lancet study included every Iraqi who was not wearing an Iraqi military uniform when they were killed, meaning that at minimum several thousand Iraqi soldiers and members of the Fedayeen were wrongly included in the study.

Re:Of course...

[Leo McGarry]

It kind of bugs me that your idea of "always" only goes back to 1979.

It also kind of bugs me that your understanding of the Kurdish situation is so incomplete. Turkey has a significant Kurdish minority population. Some of those Kurds got together to form a Marxist revolutionary group called, variously, KADEK, the KGK, the HSK, the KHK and the PKK. This group adopted terrorist tactics in their campaign for "independence" (it's hard to apply that word to any totalitarian socialist group).

The Kurds of northeastern Iraq, by contrast, are committed to democracy and to capitalism. The KDP and the PUK are no more allied with the Marxist terrorists in Turkey than the Turks themselves are.

And the Shia of Iraq practice a very different sect of Islam than the Shia of Iran. Put simply, the Iranian mullahs are theocrats who believe that Islam should be at the heart of government, while the mullahs of Shia Iraq follow a more insular teaching that instructs them to stay out of politics and government. The two groups are like oil and water. The odds that they would ever join together in a political union are a big fat zero.

I appreciate your interest in the subject and your desire to get to the heart of the situation. But it sounds like you've got a lot to learn.

Re:Of course...

[Dirtside]

Riiight. Because as we all know, conservative bloggers never do anything wrong, and are all open-minded!

News for you, buddy: Being fucked up is pretty well spread across the entire political spectrum.

Re:Of course...

[javiercero]

Hahahaha, nice. Well, as long as you get to define that democracy is a system where you get to vote unknown candidates because an invading army told you to vote, then OK. But please keep your brand of "democracy" as far away from my country as possible.

As per your definition of sovereign country I'd very interested in finding out what it is. Because nowhere in the Oxford English dictionary does it mention that a nation to be sovereign has to be a democracy. In fact the word sovereign derives from monarchy which is by definition a dictatorship....

As dealing with complexity, well... I must tell you that I so happen to be a veteran (yup from one of them Eurowussie countries) and I happened to see actual fire action in the former Yugoslavia. So spare me the "complexities" and the "moral obligations" that were so "imperative" which you blisfuly ignore, but I must trust you they were imperative, right?

As per the official count, again funny how the Pentagon has said many times that they were not conducting official body counts. How can you cite an "official" count that does not exist as proof of anything?

The fact still remains, your government decided to invade a sovereign country based on a claim that has proven to be false. Thus the thousands of civilians killed are indeed a result of a criminal endeavour. You can sit down and masturbate to your self righteous Bushista propaganda all you want, still it does not change the fact that you are indeed supporting a criminal enterprise. Just because Saddam was a bad person does not give you nor your ilk the right to invade another country on false premises and nonexistant threats. Why? Because that makes you the aggressor... try to dress it up as "freedom" or "dancing happy shinny people" who can now vote because a muslim cleric faced Bush who was the least interested in helding these elections. So please spare me the crappola... it is always interesting to see the degree of delusion some of you are employing. The koolaid is indeed far more powerful than we anticipated.

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll keep this short, simple, and sweet.

1. Iraq had WMDs.

Even the current administration admits this. The main reason for the Irag war was 100% false.

2. Iraq had the capabilities to produce WMDs.

Most factories capable of producing said weapons were in ruins. The infrastructure is in a horrendous state. And it had been that way for quite some time.

3. Iraq was a haven for terrorists.

It was a known fact that Saddam did not tolerate terrorists. He didn't like the US, but he liked terrorist even less.

4. Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Somehow half of the US believes Irag, terrorism, and 9/11 are synonymous. This is of course, completely inaccurate. Several inquiries and reports has stated this quite clearly.

5. Iraq was a dire threat to the US.

Their longest range missles had a range of 200 miles. They only had conventional explosives. Even most of their army lacked ammunition. No-fly zones covered 2/3 of the country. Exports and imports were restricted. Most of their equipment wasn't even in a functional state.

What I state above isn't liberal propaganda. It's simple fact.

So in turn, I ask the simple question. Why did we invade Iraq?

I've heard the neocon spin in a thousand different direction. I've even heard Dr. Rice squeeze out of answering this questions.

But the question remains. At a cost of 1200+ lives (just on the US side) and over $300 billion, I'd really like an answer.

But I won't get one. Because everyone likes to point at Iraq (especially after the elections) and say "LOOK! SHINY!".

We, the people, were manipulated and lied to. Deliberately. Repeatedly. And no matter what supposed "good" people want to paint this with, there are several things to keep in mind.

1. WE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO INVADE IRAQ.
2. THOUSANDS HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF THESE LIES.

And last but not least...

3. THE ENDS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

~AC~

Re:Of course...

[mankey wanker]

Who modded this "shite" insightful? It's practically drooling idiocy in line with the article about how school kids don't understand the 1st Amendment.

To believe this administration's justifications for the war in Iraq you have to also believe that it's possible that they can change their story every few days and that each new story is true. But I guess if you can believe that then you can also believe that a man originally appointed President and who then barely scraped by in winning an election has a mandate for all kinds of nonsense and has "political capital" to spend.

These jerks never had political capital - that's why the needed Powell to play front man/whipping boy for them. And Powell took it like a man until even he tired of the bullshit. Now Powell and son are both out - and for good I imagine. They won't play ball so this administration has told them to take their gear, shove it up their asses, and clear out. "Thanks for giving us a modicum of cred, niggermen! Now get the fuck out before we salt your asses with our shotguns."

Here's the problem: 2 + 2 = 4 and not whatever the Ministry of Love says it does. Not today. Not the day our Mission was Accomplished. Not fucking ever.

We are in Iraq so that an elite few can gain control of Iraqi oil fields. All those other justifications you seem to hold dear are for the chumps and plebs. You seem to hold a poor opinion of hardcore neocon bible thumber types, but you are yourself just another color of "mark." It's my opinion that you psychologically prefer to believe the lies because you sleep better at night because of them, not becuase you actually believe these lies to be true.

And I am trying to wise up the marks. People like myself are asking you to believe harsh truths - as cold as the most severe, darkest night of midwinter. But yes, you have agreed to murder, mayhem, and the unequal application of the laws of the U.S.

There's nothing wrong with you that a good solid reading of "The Prince," "1984" and "Animal Farm" wouldn't hopefully cure. In the main, I'd say we were living the "Animal Farm" world led by people that use "The Prince" as a road map with all of us of the lower classes hoping it doesn't really become "1984." Don't make the mistake of reading those important texts and thinking they are just fiction.

Re:Of course...

[Leo McGarry]

a system where you get to vote unknown candidates

Hey, man. The administration was in favor of a caucus system. It was the Iraqi government that chose direct elections. Personally I think that caucuses would have been WAY better for the Iraqi people, but I also believe that even an imperfect democracy is better than none at all.

because an invading army told you to vote

What? Seriously ... what? What the hell are you talking about? I'm assuming by "invading army" you mean the Coalition. They weren't even remotely involved in the election. The election was entirely the work of the Iraqi government. They announced last summer that an election would be held, they decided the date, they chose the method of casting ballots. The Coalition wasn't even remotely involved.

nowhere in the Oxford English dictionary does it mention that a nation to be sovereign has to be a democracy

You rely on a dictionary to tell you the intricacies of United States foreign policy? That might just be mistake #1.

In fact the word sovereign derives from monarchy

Um, no. The English word "sovereign" comes from an old French word that meant "empowered." In our language, "sovereign" means "possessing legitimate authority." The word has no connection whatsoever to the word "monarchy."

So spare me the "complexities" and the "moral obligations" that were so "imperative"

Okay, but ...if you don't want to hear about them, shouldn't you quit bitching about the fact that you can't seem to understand them?

the Pentagon has said many times that they were not conducting official body counts. How can you cite an "official" count that does not exist as proof of anything?

Please read my post again, more carefully this time. The numbers I cited came from Iraqi morgue records, not from the Pentagon. Of course the Pentagon makes no effort to count Iraqi civilian casualties. How would they? When an Iraqi civilian gets caught by friendly fire or something, does that Iraqi's body get taken to a Coalition facility for burial? Of course not. It does, however, get taken to an Iraqi morgue, where they keep track of these things. Hence the numbers.

The fact still remains, your government decided to invade a sovereign country based on a claim that has proven to be false.

Um. How do you get from my "here are the various ways in which you are incorrect, and believe me when I say there are many of them" to "the fact still remains?" I mean, what with you being wrong and all, the point here is kind of that the fact does not still remain.

1. Iraq was not sovereign. It was under the iron fist of a tyrannical dictator.

2. The claims were not false; to the contrary, they were right on the money. Saddam was in flagrant violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire. He was actively pursuing proscribed weapons. He was actively engaged in terrorism.

See? Between #1 and #2, the "fact" does not still remain. You're wrong.

Just because Saddam was a bad person does not give you nor your ilk the right to invade another country

The fact that he was in violation of the Safwan Accords gave us the right. The fact that he was a bad person gave us the responsibility.

Re:Of course...

[daveschroeder]

Hello. Thank you for replying with a reasonable post.

You say want an honest debate, and yet you go out of your way to insult, belittle and demean those you wish to engage in debate. Fair enough.

I have not gone out of my way. This is routine. I live in Madison, WI, where the person who murdered an Army mathematics researcher by bombing a University building during the Vietnam war now runs a popular deli downtown next to the campus. You know, just so you know where I'm coming from.

Now, let's be honest. Which of the following two scenarios strikes you as most plausible?

Actually, it's closer to 2.) than anything, if those are my only options.

However, this brings up some of the hypocrisy: if we had trouble finding the WMD (for example, it is KNOWN that 720 *tons* of Sarin alone is unaccounted for), it was because we didn't have enough manpower. But we're supposed to be pulling troops out? So which is it, fundamentally? More, or less?

On Abu Ghraib: so you're saying that because, in your opinion, we probably commited thousands of acts of sodomy, rape, beating, near-drowning and 'accidental' homocide on prisoners of war back in World War II that it really isn't a big deal for us to continue to sodomize, rape, beat, near-drown and 'accidentally' kill prisoners of war today. Is this correct?

Yes. However: I don't defend it. I don't condone it. But I realize that is the nature of a wartime situation. I concede that the conditions that lead to such acts are a large set of variables, which can certainly be minimized. I'll concede things like having inexperienced reserve or guard soldiers, or a reserve officer whose normal job is selling window coverings as a commander of a military prison can contribute to these conditions. However, I have a capability to see the big picture. You're damned right I can overlook - not excuse, but, on balance, overlook - Abu Ghraib when the beginning of the big picture is what happened on 30 January.

60%! Fuck! We don't even get that in the US! These people are ready for modernization, freedom, and religious pluralism.

If continuing sanctions were the only alternative to going in, what of the estimated 50,000/year Iraqis - over 600,000 - dead during said sanctions, supposedly as a direct result of the sanctions process, according to organizations like Amnesty International? That situation showed no signs of ending. So, our action will actually directly result, over a slightly longer term, in the clear net preservation of Iraqi life. It astounds me that people can't accept some collateral or short term consequences for a much larger positive payoff. It further astounds me that some people can't even see that payoff.

Perhaps there are some who would say there should never have been sanctions and we should never have gotten involved with Iraq the first time around. To those people I would ask: are you against everything that has built our civilization, in no small part the petroleum economy? Try not to think about fat rednecks or soccer moms driving Suburbans and Excursions for a second. Think about plastics, and medical equipment, and food processing, water treatment, fertilizers, energy for manufacturing, and the happiness and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. Try to also ask yourself if we're content with letting millions of people live in backwards, repressive regimes. Peace in the mideast is a real prospect! Bush is the first president to ever suggest an autonomous Palestine. The administration is a group of a few people who again understand the importance of the spread of democracy around the world, not ONLY for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others! This is really the dream! All some can think of is things like "Halliburton" and "$9B unaccounted for by Coalition Provisional Authority". Sure, those are a part of it. But not all of it! And frankly, not even most of it. Or, more accurately, really any of it.

Back to the point, it more likely is close to:

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

You and people like you are exactly why I pretty much ignore 90% of republicans. Their "arguments" are repetitive and easily refuted. When you do refute them, instead of attempting to support them, they try to change the subject to something else. Or just talk louder, it's like dealing with fucking children. With the exception that children can learn from their mistakes.

Admittedly there are a FEW republicans out there who seem not only capable of thinking for themselves but fairly intellegent as well. McCain pops to mind for that. However the vast majority seem to fit below the average intellegence mark.

I'll tell you what, educate yourself, then educate some of the real morons out there and then you might be able to start communicating like adults. Once that happens then I will be happy to debate you. In fact while you are doing that I will attempt to educate some of the left wing morons who seem frequently to be just as bad as the rightwingers.

Re:Of course...

[daveschroeder]

Congratulations; you put up one hell of a fight against that straw man.

Heh, tha....

Oh. You're serious.

I may not have been responding directly to anyone in particular with my post, but, I assure you, the argument is quite real.

is concealing from them the WMD's we all know were found in Iraq after all?

I know (or at least hope) you're just kidding around here, but, if you're not: Wha??

No sane person, or, indeed anyone I've ever heard talk on this topic, has ever said that we "really found" WMD in Iraq (aside from the fact that we did indeed find trace amounts of WMD in Iraq several times [and I am NOT saying that is a justification], and hundreds of tons of WMD and WMD constituents are, to this day, unaccounted for.

It has not occurred to you that people think this team lies because we were told repeatedly (and simultaneously denied that we were told) that this administration knew he had 'em, knew where they were (and had 8x10 color glossies with circles and arrows) and knew he had em pointed at us? Not suspected, knew.

Hmm. As I've said countless times in the past (though not to you), this war as NOT ABOUT WMD. WMD was tangential, at best. Yes, it was used as the primary justification because 1.) It was a simple one, and 2.) The myriad other vastly more important reasons we went into Iraq (i.e., part of an omnibus, comprehensive effort to begin affecting change in the mideast was as limited of resources as possible) would be too difficult to wrap up into 10 second soundbites. But, if you listen to the speeches and read the publications of the likes of Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, it's crystal clear what our policy is.

And, on top of that, Iraq did have WMD. Hundreds of tons of it. It was still known to be in possession of said WMD in 1998, when the UN pulled the weapons inspectors for lack of effectiveness after Saddam continually accused them of being US spies. Iraq NEVER fully cooperated with the weapons inspectors, was in egregious violation of binding UNSEC resolutions multiple times, and believed itself (in the person of Saddam) to be massively investing in WMD, including nuclear, programs. Not to mention that this thought was echoed by the intelligence community of Germany, France, Russia, the UK, ourselves, and the intelligence capabilities of the UN proper. Now, as to whether the threat was *imminent* or *actionable* was a subject of fierce debate. And, as inspectors hadn't been in Iraq for 5 years, we frankly had no idea what the fuck was going on, and neither did they. To paraphrase Rice: are we to believe that after 1998, once inspectors left, and when Saddam had never fully cooperated before, AND Iraq was known to be in possession of WMD *at that time*, that Iraq suddenly had a change of heart, and with no supervision or verification, simply destroyed the remaining hundreds of tons of WMD, all without any proof, paperwork, or even reasonable mechanisms to do so? THAT is a fucking laugh, right there, my friend. This, of course, says nothing about the 650,000 tons (yes, that is the correct number) of intact UN-banned weapons found by coalition forces. And we didn't "admit" that there are no WMDs in Iraq, as some blogs claimed. We simply said it's not worth expending any more resources looking. Many probably found their way to places like the Sudan and Syria. Who knows.

Or because we were told in every imaginable way that Saddam et al were involved in the attacks of September 11, and that that date never failed to appear in the diatribe justifying the invasion?

You, sir, are a blithering dumbass. NO ONE in ANY media, nor anyone in the administration EVER said that Iraq and/or Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11, ever. ALL major media outlets referred repeatedly, ad nauseum, to the fact that bin Laden was the architect of 9/11, that bin Laden was Saudi, and that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Additionally, the information your assertion is based on is

Re:Of course...

[javiercero]

I guess before we continue this debate, I must ask you to please go and look up the definition of "sovereign" because it painfully clear that you are using concepts for this discussion and you do not even have the slightest clue what those concepts' definitions are. In any case, I will also ask you to go ahead and understand what a straw man is when applied to debates. Because you keep on using them over and over and over again...

But in any case, just so you can enjoy your Kool Aid, I will refer you to the following historical precedent:

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."

- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.

That happened a few months before the Tet offensive, I am aware that you may not even know what that is. But enjoy....

Once you grow up you may understand that you can not bomb a sovereign nation into democracy. Cheers... and yes Iraq was a sovereign country.

Re:Of course...

[American AC in Paris]

However, this brings up some of the hypocrisy: if we had trouble finding the WMD (for example, it is KNOWN that 720 *tons* of Sarin alone is unaccounted for), it was because we didn't have enough manpower. But we're supposed to be pulling troops out? So which is it, fundamentally? More, or less?

At root:

I'd have preferred we hadn't embarked on a voluntary invasion of Iraq. For all the places in this world we could have engaged in a military intervention--whether for national security, counter-terrorism activities, economic interest, or spreading democratic ideals--I could have thought of any number of nations that needed (and continue to need) more urgent attention than Iraq.

That said, I'd have much prefered we'd have gone in with overwhelming force. I'm a strong believer in the Powell Doctrine, and I think that we'd be in a whole lot better shape had the DoD listened to Shinseki instead of ridiculing him and swinging the door into his ass on his way out. Had we gone in with a significantly stronger force initially, we would likely not be facing the security problems we have today, and we'd be in a much better position to be bringing our troops home. The vast majority of Iraqis want democracy--but they need security and basic services before they'll thank us for a job well done. At this point, I honestly don't know what kind of troop level would be most useful, though. We've got an insurgency that is tens of thousands strong, and as much as I'd like to believe otherwise, it isn't terribly likely that elections will break their resolve.

We're past fixing this with changes in troop levels. The real hope lies in the hands of the Iraqis now, and the situation we've handed them is a lot more difficult than it could have been.

Yes. However: I don't defend it. I don't condone it. But I realize that is the nature of a wartime situation.

...but we've been in wartime situations before, and we've always taken great pains to distance ourselves as much as possible from the demons of torture and cruelty. Of course we've had events in the past, but this is the first time our leadership has actively sought to position our national policy as "not quite torture". It is clear from Gonzales' confirmation hearings (and Bush's continued strong support for his AG appointee) that the administration is very interested in the distinction between "torture" and "cruel, inhumane and degrading, but not technically torture". We've seen tortured legal arguments surrounding Gitmo--technically, it isn't U.S. soil, and technically these people aren't POWs, so technically the Geneva Conventions don't apply.

This is the first time in our nation's history that our leaders have openly and actively probed just how badly they can treat detainees without crossing the line to torture. Dammit, this is not what our nation stands for. I don't care one whit whether or not the powers that be believe that waterboarding qualifies as torture. That we're even engaging in anything less than complete, humane, and dignified treatment for our prisoners chills my blood. We cannnot be a beacon to the world so long as we continue to legitimize behavior such as what we've seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. This is simply not even a negotiable point; the president should have--and could have--ended this mess years ago, well before the atrocities of Abu Ghraib.

When the world community immediately balked (incorrectly mind you, since the UN was not only authorized, but indeed, by the UN charter, COMPELLED to act, with force if necessary for the dozens of times Iraq was in verified, material breach of binding Security Council resolutions), we made plans for a coalition of the willing.

I agree that there was a lot of overreaction from the liberal camp, and I'm willing to admit that I was guilty of a my share. There were times I simply didn't listen; I've since reflected on this and real

Re:Of course...

[totipotentsoul]

Of all the things on slashdot, it bothers you that I've got a lot to learn?

I may have made an exaggeration - what I meant is that Turkey is opposed to any idea of a Kurdistan in Iraq, because the Turkish Kurds may want to join with them, and they live in a valuable area of Turkey. Now, the Iraqi Kurds may be different than the Turkish Kurds, but that doesn't mean that Turkey isn't still opposed to any kind of Kurdistan.

The Shia, while they may practice somewhat differently from the Iranian Shia, also practice somewhat differently from oh, let's say the Kurds and Sunnis. Is the chance of them forming a political union with the Kurds and Sunni also a big fat zero?

Was the way this was sold by the neocons at least a bit more ignorant than my post?

In the next few years we'll all be learning a lot, about an area that even people who know about don't know much. I appreciate your willingness to enlighten, but I wasn't just pulling this out of my ass.

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

I could reply to that with a picture of a Diebold voting machine, if I could be bothered to look for a photograph. Democracy -- cheap enough to buy the results easily.

Re:Of course...

[Leo McGarry]

Another "Daily Kos" reader goes forth to spread the gospel. Don't you people ever get tired of just parroting what your paid political consultant tells you?

In other news..

[gillbates]

73 percent of high school students think downloading music for free is a constitutionally protected exercise of their first ammendment rights...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Hobadee]

high school is not now nor has it ever been anything like "real life".

That's the problem though. High School SHOULD be like "real life", as it is preparing our kids to enter "real life". We have a system that doesn't prepare them and then wonder why they fail. What sort of sense does that make?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Just Some Guy]

It wasn't until college (and I remember our second semester English professor being appalled) that I was able to write how I felt about a topic and back it up with real information.

Funny; I could write pretty much anything I wanted in my high school English class as long as it was good. It wasn't until I got to college and lost two letter grades on a Religion 101 paper - one for using "he" as a pronoun referring to Jesus (?!?!?!) and another for saying "1862 A.D." instead of "1862 A.C.E." - that I learned what it meant to be censored in school.

Off-topic P.S.: It's un-PC to say "A.D." because it means "Year of our Lord", but perfectly fine to define a "common era" that begins with the birth of Christ and use that instead. That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard from a hypothetically intelligent person.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[bluprint]

I think it better demonstrates the problem of government funded publications.

IAALS : Incorrect - Not just the first amendment

[omarKhayyam]

I'm in law school. I just took Constitutional Law. I am staring at the full text of the Constitution.

1. There is no preamble to the Bill of Rights incorporated into the text of the Constitution. Congress may have written a preamble when the Bill of Rights was composed, but it's not included in the Constitutional text.

2. The first ten amendments are amendments, just like the last 17 amendments.

3. Any part of the Constitution can be amended. ANY part. There are no exceptions. The Supreme Court cannot declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional, because amendments are part of the Constitution. Even the part of the Constitution specifying how we amend the constitution can be amended. There is no "do not amend clause." Through amendments to the Constitution, Congress and the States could abolish the Executive. They could abolish the Judiciary. They could abolish Congress. Congress and the States could, in geek speak, "deltree Federal_Government." Whether it is a good idea to amend the Constitution is another idea altogether.

There's more

[ChrisMaple]

Article VI

... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Better yet ask them about the 2nd.

[Anonymous Coward]

and the definition of the words "shall not be infringed"

Most adults don't understnad article 1

[scorp1us]

It is hardly fair to point the finger at kids not understanding the first admendment when the adults seem to not read or believe Article one.. No direct taxes without being apportioned to the States. It says it loud and clear, yet millions of americans pay trillions that they do not have to every single year. Dig deeper, and you will see that there is no law that makes wages federally taxable for the typical American. As a matter of fact, anyone who lives in the 50 states, and works for private or publically owned companies do not owe 1/4 to 1/3 of their pay to the federal government. Shocking I know. But true. It is a great deception. One I invite you to examine. This is now possible thanks to the internet and the mass dissemination that it provides. Hook yourself up with Title 26 of the USC and curl up by a fire, and tell me where my wages are made federally tabable.. They aren't.

Chew on that a while.

Re:Most adults don't understnad article 1

[Breakfast Pants]

I hate responding to trolls but let's assume you aren't one. Here goes, the 16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
among the several States, and without regard to any census or
enumeration.
Are you seriously telling me that you read the constitution (and though you talk of "digging deeper" you apparently didn't get past...ARTICLE ONE) and figured out that no one has to pay income tax and everyone who has read the constitution since the passing of the 16th has somehow misinterpretted it? I'm still chewing.

Re:Most adults don't understnad article 1

[scorp1us]

Ah, a somewhat inelligent reader.

Ok, now there is a question of whether it was ever ratified or not: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr13.h tm
http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/othertax /16t hamend.html

However, one does not need to rest his hopes on that premise alone. Here is where you DO have to dig deeper and you get to this juicy bit (Treom the taxableincome.net page:
"However, shortly after the amendment was (supposedly) ratified, both the Supreme Court and the Secretary of the Treasury admitted that the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing powers. In Treasury Decision 2303, the Secretary of the Treasury directly quoted the Supreme Court (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (240 U.S. 103)) in saying that "The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation," but instead simply prohibited Congress original power to tax incomes "from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."

Furthermore, it is important to note the statutory definition is not "all that comes in" it is instead limited to specific kinds of "income" (vernacular).

You see, the Consitution cannot be in conflict with itself. In order to keep the consitution consistant, they cannot have added direct taxing of "wages" (vernacular). Now we see why I said we do not need to read past article 1. The original consitution cannot be modified to extend powers.

If you do choose to dig deeper, and I do hope you do, you will also find that "wages", "employee", "employer", "State", "income" are "Terms of Art" which are specifically defined in a limited capacity as to not subject the typical American.

We have all grown up with "income" taxes, but few of us realize we only receive "renumeration" from our "employer" (vernacular). "Income" (statutory) for most people is intrest from bonds and possibly FDIC insured bank accounts (that last one is a bit of a grey area). Surpised? I was.

Re:Most adults don't understnad article 1

[Breakfast Pants]

The constitution can not be in conflict with itself? Are you crazy? Copyright is established in the constitution and later the first ammendment establishes free speech. Stories like Beowulf were created by thousands of people retelling the story and adding their views to it. Currently with copyright anything you publish perform etc. is by default covered by copyright and there is no compulsory licensing available for the extension of a work.
All of this is in conflict with the first ammendment, yet we still have copyright and we still have a (somewhat limited) first ammendment. The court has to look at things reasonably and with a sound mind--that's what they do.

Re:Most adults don't understnad article 1

[scorp1us]

I don't know what is more upsetting, that you dropped the tax issue like a hot potato or your lack of understanding copyright.

Also, incase you hadn't heard the opt-out system of copyright is being challenged on constitutional grouds. So yes, the constitution is alive and well.

You are free to publish other's works, which they have secured for limited times. However they must adhere to "fair use" provisions until the work is out of copyright protection. This is how congress allowes free speech and copyright to coexist.

If you really want to understand these issues, and obtaint he mind set in which the consitution was written read up on Natural Law. Our founding fathers were learned men and philosophers and businessmen, a combination of each which is rarely found today. Our schools produce people who are soley learned men, philosphers, or businessmen without achieving a balance of all three. If such a person has such a balance, they rarely if ever end up being elected in goverment.

Today, who wins and loses a race only matters in how much buying their vote will cost you.

Anyway... I belive the original intent of copyright was short terms. 7 years were the original, and seems right. Today it should be more like 6 months because of the faster pace that technology has delivered to us. Instead businessmen (not philosphers) looking to preserve thier business have bludgeoned our copyright system.

Face it Rock and Roll, and the music and movie industries were non-existent at the time the consitution was written. Sales of sheet music we the CDs of the time. 7 years in the days of horse-drawn buggies and such is a reasonable term. But how many CDs does Brittney sell a year later? Not many. We have a 6 month product cycle. In 1776 it could take 6 months just to get it heard by a siginificant amount of people.

Bck to the subject at hand...
Got a challenge on taxes?

Re:Most adults don't understnad article 1

[Breakfast Pants]

Not a challenge on taxes, but here: "You are free to publish other's works, which they have secured for limited times. However they must adhere to "fair use" provisions until the work is out of copyright protection. This is how congress [sic] allowes free speech and copyright to coexist." That is how congress allows free speech and copyright to coexist? Are you kidding me? If just by calling restrictions on speech "fair use provisions" you can silence speech then how does that allow free speech and copyright to coexist? The fact is, the constitution explicitly made an exception for copyrighted speech when dealing with the first amendment. All I said was that the constitution has many contradictions but unless you are a semantic prick it isn't a big deal. The constitution protects free speech in a big blanket statement and then also allows for copyrights. These are two things that do not go hand in hand, and yet since its in there we are forced to put some interpretation on it and do the best we can. Same with income taxes. It's in there that the Feds can have them, it's also in there that they can't. Deal with it.

Re:Most adults don't understnad article 1

[scorp1us]

You have free speech with respect to anything you create. When you deal with copyright you deal with speech about what others have created. There is only a problem is you want to copy their work with no investment and undermine their work. That is why it says "for the progress of the sciences and useful arts" You are only supposed to be enjoined from undermining (by copying) other people's work. You have no right to other people's work. Infact, copyright give you more rights, not less, by allowing you to use literal portions of other people's work. Free Speech is not GPL.

Then you wrap up your argument about taxes in a blanket statement and never really contibute to the debate. Yes feds can collect fed income tax. Howeever that was never the question. The question is where (in law) are my wages made taxible? I'll further specify, because it does matter, that I do not live in any US gov't possession including DC, nor do I work for the gov't directly. I work in one of the 50 states for a private employer. So where is my pay made taxable? You must find the law because there must be a law in order for it to be the law. You can't be made liable for tax unless there is a law.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[I_Love_Pocky!]

and in doing so, sent a clear message to all neighboring countries that should they grant protection to terrorist organizations we'll summarily remove them from power.

Or rather a message was sent that the United States will attack whom ever it wants, when ever it wants. So, you (the foreign power) had better not cross us (The United States), or we will find your links to terrorism and hit you with a preemptive strike.

Don't let anyone kid you, Iran is next on the chopping block. I'm not against invading Iran, so much as I'm against the inevitable lies the Bush administration will use to justify such an action. He would probably have a lot more support if he was just more straight forward about the motivations for his actions.

Re:Violation of First Amendment Right to Expressio

[RmanB17499]

Sue for money. The girl who made a confederate dress for her prom, but was thrown out because of it made a pretty penny: at least $25,000! At least eventually we can bankrupt the school system into submission.

I can't believe this is still modded up.

[pavon]

That link you posted did not show what you claim it does. All it showed is that if you take a bunch of rulings, laws and definitions out of context, you can use them to different conclusion than that of the Supreme Court (and it didn't even do a very good job of that). Which is a no brainer - any large body of law will inherently have inconsistancies and vagaries. Our founders recognized that.

That is the whole point of the judicial branch of the government - to interpret the law! Their interpretation is the authoritative one - not yours, and asserting and pretending that a laws should be interpreted the way you want them to be does not make it true. You can challenge the interpretation in court, you can get congress to write laws that override the current interpretation, but until then that judicial precidence is as much a part of the legal system in this country as the laws themselves, and is just as enforcable.

As for the ammendment you are again patently false , as many people have pointed out - any of the constitution can be modified by amending it, as defined in the constitution.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[FLEB]

Although the matter is called into question even more in that (in the US) education, and funding of the public school system, is compulsory.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Actually, in real life, governments routinely apply laws to the entire population (banning firearms, banning marijuana) due to the irresponsibility of the few.

And, just like in real life, it only really hurts the innocent.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[GigsVT]

We did write the feature anyway, the decision had come down when he got the press ready sample. We had the whole paper ready to go to print when this happened.

We did publish it ourselves and hand it out.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism".

Or "war".
--
AC

Love the sig

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, llamas everywhere. Eeeh!

Re:Love the sig

[bcmm]

I also found a string that Google said was a cheat for a Windows game...
How did that get into my RAM?

europe

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe, good I live in urope and not usa.

u are so leet

well... u get ownzored by ur own stupidity now

the same number, perhaps....

[rbird76]

that understand the difference between dependent and independent clauses.

Hahahaha

[Orne]

This is what No Child Left Behind was implemented to remove! If you bothered to read the principles of the law, and actually understood the dire state of the education system before N.C.L.B. was put into place, then you'd have a completely different outlook. During the 90s, the educational system in this country took a huge hit, and the quality of civics, history, geography, and anything in social studies was pushed to the side, in the efforts of pushing a "kinder, gentler" educational system where noone failed, the teacher and the students could be open and friends, where the teacher didn't actually have to teach if the student couldn't fail.

It took 10 years of yelling about the decline of the US's education system, and this administration finally did something about it, and who balks? The teachers of course, since they're taken to task for putting out bad "products" for an awfully high cost. We've tried throwing money at it, and every year it gets worse. Well, its time to stop, time to remove the underperforming teachers, and bang some knowledge back into the student's heads.

Re:Hahahaha

[SonicBV]

Bullshit.

My dad is an elementary school principal. The No Child Left Behind act finally trickled its way to his school this year. His new budget for all office supplies, office equipment maintenance, and miscellaneous items (light bulbs, light switches, etc.) is around $4,000. Last year, before the No Child Left Behind act took effect, his school spent around $20,000 on paper supplies (it's an elementary school, they use lots and lots of randomly-colored paper).

He was informed this year that if his teachers do not produce better students and achieve the goal proficiency rates, he will be fired. No retirement, no transfer, just a letter stating that he is not to return to school grounds. A state employee (exempt from the same "produce results or be canned immediately" rule) will be placed in his position until such time as a suitable replacement can be found (read: indefinitely).

The teachers, some of whom have yet to produce a single child who passes all sections of the tests, will be given an 11% raise.

And George W. Bush can still sleep at night.

US Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

... and most adults think the US Constitution mandates "separation of church and state." It doesn't.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It does NOT read:
1. Religious speech, symbols and ideas are not allowed in public forums
2. Congress shall ensure that all public schools in the US teach all subjects from an agnostic and humanistic point of view
3. Public school textbooks shall not have stickers that read "Evolution is a theory."
4. Etc.

Fox guarding the henhouse...

[dark_requiem]

Lets see... A government desparately trying to gain unprecidented and grossly unconstiutional powers. A founding document that prohibits its doing so. A populace that is highly educated as to its civic history and won't allow such a thing to... Oh, wait.

John Dewey, founder of the modern education system, often wrote that the purpose of education was not to teach children to think as independent rational beings, but to teach them their place in the social order. He viewed education as a tool of the rulers, to be used to ensure his vision of a utopian, egalitarian society. In other words, he was trying to create good little drones to work in the factories. These were his stated intentions.

Now we have a country where Dewey's system of education has been implemented to the last detail. The nature of the cirriculum is controled by the State. Now, the State seeks to expand its power. In order to do that, it must first subvert the constitutional limitations placed on its power. In order to do that, you need to ensure that the public is blissfully unaware of what rights it is losing, and why those rights were explicitly protected in the first place. If you control the only substantial source of education for the vast majority of the populace, you can do just that.

I am currently 22, having left high school five years ago. Even at the time, as a teenager in a civics class, I was appaled by the total lack of depth and context in the presentation of the material. We did at least study the constitution, in that we read the text and were quizzed on the Bill of Rights, but we were given no context, no attempt to justify the necessity of these rights. I got the distinct impression that those of my classmates who did not investigate political theory on their own would be woefully lacking in terms of civic knowledge.

That was, as I said, five years ago. I have a couple of friends slightly younger than myself, who just recently graduated, and they naturally have friends slightly younger than them who are still in high school, and I am sad to say I can confirm this report's claims. While my friends are rather better versed than most in political matters (try hanging out with me and not being...), their friends are horrible. The predominant attitude towards freedom is that the constitution is antiquated and useless, "everything changed after 9/11", and that we have to sacrifice our freedom for security. When asked the obvious questions such as "why?" and "how so?", the response is usually along the lines of "that's how it is, that's how it has to be."

While it is widely accepted as necessary and beneficial, compulsory "public" education is one of the most basic tools of the total state. It is too easily abused as a tool to warp the minds of innocent children, and force them into a state of complacency and acceptance of a destructive political orthodoxy. It must be abolished if we are to retain what is left of our freedom and restore what has been lost (if you're wondering what I would replace it with, see some of my previous comments. I don't want to type that book again). Children grow up thinking that the State that now exists is the legitimate governing body of the US, when in fact it has broken every stipulation of its founding charter, the constitution. They are brought up never knowing of the abuses, the atrocities, the corruption that has characterized their government for generations. If a generation is raised with no concept of freedom, with no inkling of what is being lost, then we are truly doomed. The parents of that generation will be the last to know freedom.

Re:Fox guarding the henhouse...

[J'raxis]

If you haven't read John Taylor Gatto's books yet, you should. He goes into a lot of detail about people like John Dewey and the other architects of American state schooling.

His major work is published online entirely.

Re:Fox guarding the henhouse...

[dark_requiem]

Actually, I have read his book The Underground History of American Education , and found it to be not only interresting and enlightening, but also conformed to my own experiences with the public education system. He is truly a brilliant man, and it is refreshing to see that someone awarded Teacher of the Year by the state of New York would write an expose of that kind. I also recommend reading his works.

Re:Fox guarding the henhouse...

[RmanB17499]

I like the Free State Project, but now that it's selected to be in such a cold climate, I'd rather welcome our police-state overseers.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[DarkOx]

If that was reall the case you could have writen the ACLU and probably gone to court with the school district. YOU CHOSE not to protect your rights so they got infringed that is how it works. I bet the town you live in has all sorts of vagrancy and public disturbance laws that are in fact Unconstitutional, due to being vage. Most towns do. The thing is its on the books and they are carefull for the most part not to try and charge anyone with it who has the resources to fight it in court or if they do they make sure the fine is small enough that you'd rather pay it then deal with it otherwise. The point is this, if you don't insist your rights be upheld you don't have any. It has always worked that way in America and that probably is for the greater public good. You could have run your articles if you had really wanted you just did not want it enough.

What bothers me most...

[Anonymous Coward]

is that kids today think that if someone tells them to STFU, then their 1st amendment rights are being trampled on. The 1st amendment gives you the right to say what you want, but I also have the right not to listen.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting comment from an independent to the (as I see it) fairly liberal crowd at Slash Dot:

I went to a (religious) private school and was taught all about my Rights as a citizen. My government teacher went into detail about what the First Amendment covered, and what it doesn't. Freedom of speech allows flag burning because it is a political statement, and political statements are exactly the kind of thing the Bill of Rights was designed to protect. The government can restrict things like, say, pornography ("You must be 18 to enter this site") because it has nothing to do with making political statements. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not cover the obscene, so the government can restrict children from porn.

The interesting thing to me is that everyone is concerned that public schools aren't education well enough, but so many are opposed to giving money so that children may attend private schools. These school systems are already in place and effective. If they were to expand their enrollment we would quickly have a first rate high schools system in America. Think about it for a while...

Slashdot Doesn't Either

[MSTCrow5429]

It seems that even Slashdot doesn't understand the First Amendment either. The Bill of Rights was written as an organic document. Each amendment ties into and relates to every other, and to focus on just one amendment to the exclusivity of every other is like trying to make cookies by just using flour. Also, the meanings of each individual amendment and the Bill of Rights as a whole drastically changed with the 14th Amendment and Incorporation. Unfortunately, when so many are ignorant of any individual amendments, you can't expect most anyone to understand the Bill of Rights as whole, or pre and post-Reconstruction understanding of such.

Could You Pass the US CitizenshipTest?

[RmanB17499]

Welcome to the Naturalization Self Test! If you weren't born here -- would they let you in?

Re:Could You Pass the US CitizenshipTest?

[udowish]

Gawd...i hope i fail...i hope i fail...

Re:Could You Pass the US CitizenshipTest?

[hengist]

Hmm, 18 right out of the 20 questions I did before I got bored. Not too bad, I think, for a non-citizen.

Wonder how US high school kids would do?

Re:Could You Pass the US CitizenshipTest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same, 36/40 for me, also not an American citizen or resident. What's a passing score? I couldn't find it.

IOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I have a link to an article about this law?

I've never heard of it!

Thank you.

(A BBC link if you can please)

Re:IOP

[mistersooreams]

It was in The Times a couple of months ago, so I'm pretty sure it was legit. I don't know how far the suggestion got, or whether it's still going to happen. Can't find any trace of it on the BBC website though, sorry.

Re:IOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh phew, it hasn't been passed yet!

I thought I was gonna have to become ashamed of my country there.

The Times is generally correct, yeah.

If you hear of it getting passed, make sure you submit a Slashdot story.

Re:IOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot to say thank you for your efforts.

So, thank you. =)

Interestingly enough...

[renderhead]

A majority of Americans wrongfully believe that a majority of Americans believe that Iraq was behind 9/11.

Okay, so I just made this statistic up, but since hardly anyone bothers to back the oft-quoted "Americans believe Iraq caused 9/11" statistic with sources, I figure I'm in good company.

Re:Interestingly enough...

[Homology]

Okay, so I just made this statistic up, but since hardly anyone bothers to back the oft-quoted "Americans believe Iraq caused 9/11" statistic with sources, I figure I'm in good company.

Here we go. From an interview (April 2003 ) vith Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political activist :

Ramachandran :The idea that Iraq represents any kind of clear and present danger is, of course, without any substance at all.

Chomsky : Nobody pays any attention to that accusation, except, interestingly, the population of the United States.

In the last few months, there has been a spectacular achievement of government-media propaganda, very visible in the polls. The international polls show that support for the war is higher in the United States than in other countries. That is, however, quite misleading, because if you look a little closer, you find that the United States is also different in another respect from the rest of the world. Since September 2002, the United States is the only country in the world where 60 per cent of the population believes that Iraq is an imminent threat - something that people do not believe even in Kuwait or Iran.

Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support the war.

As a /. geek I'm sure you now are able to Google for the actual polls yourself. And before you claim that Chomsky's number are made up, I suggest you actually learn more about the man.

next survey

[PMuse]

Do you believe that the Partiot Act should be changed to read "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."?

No.

No, that would be unamerican.

No, you can't fight terrorism that way.

No, and I'm making a list of your IP addresses.

Yes.

Cowboy Neal for Chief Justice!

Re:next survey

[PMuse]

The point being that ignorance (not to mention ignoring) of the constituion isn't limited to high school students. That failing goes all the way to the top.

Costs

[ChrisMaple]

Why does it cost $1e6 to poll 1e5 students?

According to the article, some schools have discontinued newspapers because the cost is too high. How much does it cost to provide a one-sheet to 500 students? Perhaps $10 in photocopying or laser printing?

Who's sucking up all the money?

Re:Costs

[RmanB17499]

Now if this was a school paper...they wouldn't let you write that, would they?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying those aren't suicide bombers, but spontaneous combustion of people dancing too much?

The system

[deian]

The whole school system is fucked up.
Everything is being taught in order to pass a test...in the end the whole class ends up learning absolutely nothing.

Teacher's dont tech kids to think more open mindedly, and the students who are free thinkers are usually put down.
example:
1.My friend wrote a brilliant paper on socialism - analyzing different positive effects on society, economy... Another kid in the class wrote a complete bullshit paper on democracy - just kissing ass on how America is so great and how democracy works for all. My friend ended up getting a lower grade, just because the teacher did not agree witht the paper. Because teachers are so biased, many students are reluctant to actually write what they think and usually just end up just kissing ass for a good grade.
2.In class my friend and I usually end up fighting against the rest of the class on topics of discussions, such as weather or not people of different cultural backgrounds (i.e Muslims) should be "watched by Big Brother". The scary thing is that most of my classmates think that its ok for the government to control the media and limit the rights of citizens (and especially those of specific cultural backgrounds). [I'm not 'Middle Eastern', in case you think that I'm defending muslims for personal reasons. I believe in freedom - especially to express yourself. Excuse the horryfic grammar, I'm also an immigrant :)]
Side note: I'm really tired of the bullshit saying: "If you dont like America get out of the country". Many older people have said that to me, and I think that it is a very ignorant thing to say - it's a bullshit counter to the flaws I usually bring up. There are many flaws in the American system, just like any other system, and it is those who rebel - fight for our rights - that, I believe, will reform this country to a better place.

Re:The system

[clambake]

.My friend wrote a brilliant paper on socialism - analyzing different positive effects on society, economy... Another kid in the class wrote a complete bullshit paper on democracy - just kissing ass on how America is so great and how democracy works for all. My friend ended up getting a lower grade, just because the teacher did not agree witht the paper.

I remember in school we had to write a paper on the book "Night", which is about the holocaust. I remember being told (often) that we should write something creative. I think many kids wrote thier reports as a news report, some in a "diary of anne frank" style, etc. I thought at the time it might be creative to try to take a dissenting view, and try to write a report that pointed out the "good" side of mass genocide. It wasn't like I took a racist slant or even that I really felt that the holocaust was in any way good, I just thought it might broaden my horizons to try to make a defense of the "bad guys" in the book. It was very subtle and nuanced, and I thought it was really well done.

Oh boy was that the "wrong" thing to do... I was forced under the threat of complete failure of English class for the entire year (I was a straight "a" student at that point) and severe psycolological counseling to rewrite the paper from the exact opposite point of view. I rewrote it as a pice of trash, with such likes as, "Nazis are bad bad bad people, bad bad crappy bad." and got an A and everyone was happy.

What I learned as the main rule for kids in school: never think.

Re:The system

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really tired of the bullshit saying: "If you dont like America get out of the country". Many older people have said that to me

If ANYBODY ever says that to you, unless they are an American Indian, you have the permission of the entire human race to respond to them, "you first".
USA is an entire country of immigrants.

Re:The system

[Jookey]

"Everything is being taught in order to pass a test" Well of course, how else is a teacher supposed to assign grades and asses performence. Sould everybody just get gold stars. Even grading a paper is a form of testing. If the students fail to learn, then the problem is a badly written test, not the existence of a test.

Re:The system

[danila]

The test is intended to grade the quality of teaching and learning. Designing teaching to make students pass the test better is confusing goals and means.

Re:The system

[DigiShaman]

You didn't get a bad grade for thinking, you got a bad grade for being WRONG!

Remember, the Nazis were bad. Thinking they were good is insanity as history clearly points out they were not.

Re:The system

[clambake]

You didn't get a bad grade for thinking, you got a bad grade for being WRONG!

Remember, the Nazis were bad. Thinking they were good is insanity as history clearly points out they were not.

Oh ye of small minds. The world is really only greyscale for you isn't it?

Let's say you were a Christian. Your religious texts tell you, the more you suffer here in persecution, the greater rewards you will see in heaven. Taking that point of view, the Nazis could be seen as misguided angels. That's just one of a million examples of creative thought that can be used to write a paper on this subject.

The real problem is the school is terrified that some kid won't be able to see that "in reality" they were quite a bad lot. That he won't be able to divorce himself from his writing. They are afraid that by writing a paper like I mentioned above, the brain-dead kid will actually believe what he just wrote and grow up to become hitler.

Basically they are saying, "never speculate on anything you do not believe and know to be 100% true or you risk accedentally believing it forever, no takebacks."

On the same note, think about this. Mark Twain, I believe it was, wrote a really witty and interesting "defense" of the devil. If you read it today, no doubt you would think it's quite creative and interesting. But it's wrong. The devil has no defense, he/it is bad, evil. The very definition of evil. I mean, no matter how bad you think the Nazis are, the devil is worse. It doesn't even matter if you believe in him or not, because that is just the pure unadulterated definition of "devil", at least in most religious texts. But it isn't considered to be a horror to write a light hearted account of him, is it? Why not the Holocaust then?

Re:The system

[DigiShaman]

I'm not sure what you exactly wrote about. But I will say this. The world does not need historical revisonists (those trying to rewrite history to fit their world POV).

If what you wrote about is withen the context of why the turned bad or misguided, then I would say that is a resonable topic. But, if you are writing that the Nazis were not a bad group and/or did nothing wrong...then that would be just pure wrong.

The Nazi movement was not just about Germany turned evil, but rather how dark and immoral the human species can be. I only pray that we never test that boundary again.

Re:The system

[deian]

I agree that tests should be used to assign grades, but i dont think that kids should only be taught how to pass a test.
i live in nyc - and we are taught to pass the Regents Examinations...most of the teachers teach the kids only what is on that exam and only how to pass the exam. If you ever took a look at one of the exams you would think that its a joke, its not quality education.
even Advance Placement classes are a joke. take Physics for example. in this class we are basically just taught how to apply formulas when solving problems. your might say, well isnt that the point? no, 80% of my class when given a problem that requires the understanding of a concept, fail to answer the question because they dont understand the material - which is because they are just taught how to pass the test.

Re:The system

[rpillala]

You shouldn't equate the school system with teachers, and especially not with the small number of teachers you've personally had for classes. Most decisions about education are made by others. We do the teaching, but the system has little to do with us.

I teach math so I don't run into the issue of bias very often, but I have noticed that students aren't used to being asked questions. I almost never come out and tell students the answer to anything. More often I try to lead them to a new method or answer by asking them questions about what they already know. It's not easy at all. Kids just look at me expecting me to tell them. Perhaps that's the flaw is that kids get used to "the truth" coming magically from someone in authority. It would be much simpler if I just wrote down mathematics and they copied it and reproduced it on a quiz. No one learns anything that way though.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Kupek]

You're wrong, unfortunately. Under the Hazelwood Supreme Court decision pricipals of a school have the right to censor a school newspaper if they decide its contents will disrupt the school day.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[demachina]

"Now this is NOT an insignificant study."

It is just more proof American's no longer deserve the government framework they are given under the Constitution and the founding fathers worked so hard on, cherished so much and thought so hard about.

American's really need an extended period under a really repressive dictator so they stop taking it for granted. Fortunately or unfortunately it appears likely they may get something approaching just that under the extended reign of the New Republican Party. The 10 trillion dollar question, if they do end up in something tantamount to a dictatorship, will they even care. As long as they are making a living and have something on TV every night to watch, even if it is censored in to the ground, will American's be happier under a dictatorship and having their government think for them.

You just wish American's would relearn:

- the importance of voting
- the importance of understanding the real issues and separating them from the scare tactics and BS both parties are shoveling out in their campaigns these days,
- the ability to tell good, solid candidates from incompetents who are only good at vicious campaigning (not that I'm naming any names)
- the independence to reject the candidates from the two parties if they suck and elect an independent or third party candidate who doesn't suck

Americans probably should learn a lesson from the Iraq elections. They turned out in pretty good numbers in spite of the danger and in spite of the fact they were pretty much a complete sham(oops, OK maybe they weren't such a great lesson).

Example from slashdot of people who doesn't deserve to live under America's constitution:

- Lord Kano who will vote for any incompetent for President as long as he says he is pro life and pro gun. The candidate can apparently completely screw him on every other issue and in fact no other issues even enter in to the decision.

- Numerous posters in a recent thread that said it was A-OK to torture people, because they are all airline hijacking terrorists, though in fact in many cases they aren't.

- Posters who've said its A-OK to give the President the power to arrest anyone he wants, anywhere in the world. hold them as long as he wants without due process, without access to a lawyer or their family, without charges, because he needs these powers to fight the never ending war on terrorism. OK as long as your cool with being arrested and disappeared from the face of the earth too, and are cool with spending the rest of your life being interrogated if not outright tortured.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[scaryjohn]

I had a similar experience on my high school paper. The principal quashed a story about gang activity. But he was very explicit about the fact he was interveining as the publisher of the paper and that he didn't have some sort of other authority.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Qzukk]

Once you talk elected, you talk government. Once you talk government, you talk first amendment.

The first amendment and freedom from censorship exists to combat the exact situation you propose: the majority silencing the minority. If the minority offends the majority... well, thats why we have things like the NRA, the EFF, the ACLU, the CBLDF, and so on...

Chatrooms as Free Assembly?

[TrueJim]

My suggestion was serious, but I think you're being purposely obtuse...maybe with the intent of irony? Of course a hypothetical "right to drive" wouldn't apply to people who create a public hazard by driving, any more than the right to bear arms applies now to citizens for whom gun ownership constitutes a public hazard. Likewise you also know that a gun in the wrong hands can kill 60 school children just as easily as a car in the wrong hands...and you also know that all guns are not "handguns"...so I assume all those reasons you cited were intentional strawmen.

The reason why "taxis and other public transportation" wouldn't work, of course, is that under a totalitarian regime public transportation is controlled BY the totalitarian regime. "In Soviet Russia, they don't bus you to the political demonstrations..." to paraphrase a slashdot meme. The notion that chatrooms are a credible threat to totalitarianism is an amusing conceit however, I will grant you that!

My personal "Respect for the flag" story

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon a time (when i was in the army) we were about to rotate into watch duty. Thus it was wisely decided to freshen up on "important" military skills, namely, how to hoist and strike the flag at the gate.

To that end, we took turns practising with genuine handcrafted training flags (made from all-natural muddy-brown burlap and trimmed lovingly with duct tape ;-). Now imagine a pair of -ahem- special privates (lets call them "Wino" and "Braino") who promptly manage to drop their "duct-burlapistan" flag. Oops.

Enter our newly assigned division commander, jumping out of the bushes and screaming like a madman: "How dare you desecrate our flag, that holy symbol of honor,.." and so on and so forth ...

He kept yelling for a while, but i can't say he managed to instill *any* kind of respect in us.
(other than getting on the "frag immediately if we ever go to war" list.)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I'm not sure how it works in the US

School newspapers are not subject to editorial control.

That's because people are sheep.

[Pig Hogger]

People are sheep.

Man is a social animal only too willing to surrender to the alpha-male of the colony.

Let's not forget that the ideas brought forward by the American Revolution, specifically the absolute freedom of speech, was not an acceptable idea in the time it was passed.

Until then, people unquestioningly accepted that their monarch could suppress speech at will, and, at the time, the notion that it could not was, well, revolutionnary.

What is 230 years in Human History? Practically nothing at all, so it is not surprising that the notion that free speech is not natural can very easily hide within the general human psyche and spontaneously burt out whenever someone is confronted by it.

After all, how many of those kids got their face slapped when they said something ++ungood to their parents???

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Deiouss]

I am a 16 year old in an AP history class in a southern highschool.

We are constantly bombarded with the teachers opinions, which she states as complete fact.

Some of instances I can think of off the top of my head include:

Constant bashing of Kerry (Before the elections), while supporting Bush (She outright told us the war in Iraq was good, without giving a reason why)

She told us government censorship of the media and propaganda are good tools and should be used during war times.

While studying American imperialism during the early 1900s, she explained why it wasn't really bad and the only instance where she said we "Were the bad guys" was the war in the phillipines.

She points out how good some candidates have been because they were religious fundamentalists.

She comes up with utterly ludicrous ideas, today she told us that if you smoke marijuana you are helping destroy America, because terrorists are the ones giving us the drugs to create a similar effect as was seen in the opium wars.

She constantly rants about things that completely contradict what the book says.

But the part that disturbs me the most is the way she states it as fact, and it almost angers me to see the other teenagers taking it in and nodding their heads as if she was reading it out of our text book...

And this is in the most advanced history class available to my grade, I would hate to see a lesser class.

What about the social life?

[jfengel]

How did you get humiliated? Did you get your mom to make you crappy cafeteria food? Did they hire somebody to come beat you up?

Man, you really missed out.

Re:What about the social life?

[cgranade]

I was the only male figure skater among several mid-pubesent teenage girls. In short, I got humiliated a lot.

Re:What about the social life?

[jfengel]

Perhaps you should have stuck with it. I used to know the only straight male ballet dancer in the troupe. He may have been humiliated when he was younger, but in late high school, he made out like a bandit. As it were.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Fulcrum of Evil]

We did publish it ourselves and hand it out.

Looks like you learned the right lesson then.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[Luthair]

The sad thing is, Iran had a democratic government until it started to nationalize its oil. After that western nations funded groups that toppled the democracy. :/

The 1st Amendment is key

[bshroyer]

"Based on November's vote, 51% of Americans don't believe in the First Ammendment anymore anyway- and think the second is far more important."

I think you're wrong on so many counts. I don't know of a single person who voted for EITHER candidate in November who based their decision on the 1st Amendment. It simply wasn't an issue. I listened to NPR, CNN, FoxNews, AirAmerica -- it wasn't an issue. Stop flaming.

The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy. Religious freedom is the primary reason for our existence as an independent state. It's the only reason we can argue about politics at all. It's only reason Kerry showed as well as he did; he had the better part of the national media in his corner, and there's nothing the ruling party could do to silence them. Thank God.

The press is ultimately the voice of the people. Once it's been silenced or censored, there's no point in holding elections any more.

The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is merely a tool to protect the First.

Re:The 1st Amendment is key

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I think you're wrong on so many counts. I don't know of a single person who voted for EITHER candidate in November who based their decision on the 1st Amendment. It simply wasn't an issue. I listened to NPR, CNN, FoxNews, AirAmerica -- it wasn't an issue. Stop flaming.

You must have missed Randi Rhodes show on Air America- but I'll grant you it wasn't an issue- and I believe it should have been THE central issue.

The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy.

Granted

Religious freedom is the primary reason for our existence as an independent state.

Yep, but too bad we haven't had THAT since the 1950s or earlier. Between first forcing, then removing, prayer from schools, then the overreaction by enforcing establishment over expression clauses, to today's enforced atheism, it's gotten pretty bad for religious freedom here.

t's the only reason we can argue about politics at all.

According to the Bush Campaign, arguing about politics is a terrorist act that requires some time spent in jail- so better be carefull who you argue with.

It's only reason Kerry showed as well as he did; he had the better part of the national media in his corner,

He did? Could have fooled me- looked to me that the national media was giving loads more air time to Bush & Co than to Kerry.

there's nothing the ruling party could do to silence them.

You mean other than filling up their time with fake terrorism alerts every time something went bad in Iraq?

The press is ultimately the voice of the people. Once it's been silenced or censored, there's no point in holding elections any more.

Well, near as I can tell, that already happened. The only candidates you hear from anymore are those with huge corporate campaign contributions (or as I like to call them, Bribes), and the rate of payola in this election was downright staggering.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

He failed, but only because they left the page blank instead of running the story anyway.

Not sure what BS you're spouting off...

Unfortunately, neither do the courts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Kurrurrin]

I wish I had mod points, because you would be going up. I'm sorry your post is now lost in the muck of the -1 mods, but all it takes is a couple idiots. There is a reason that I don't filter anything, and this is that reason. Thank you for your post, it cleared up the questions I had about that statistic.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Quikah]

Where is your HS located? Just checked and my HS still has Government as a graduation requirement. IL also has a state and federal constitution exam which is required for graduation. Of course I have no idea how thorough any of these are anymore.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[damiam]

The principal was constitutionally off-base in restricting the speech, as it is the taxpayer who is funding the paper. He was acting as a representative of the government, and the government cannot selectively restrict speech in this way.

No, you're wrong.

a) Public schools are generally run by local governments, which are under state control. The First Amendment to the federal constitution does not apply to state governments.

b) Even if it did, the guarentee of freedom of speech does not mean that the government has to sponsor that speech.

c) Even if it did, minors do not have the full range of legal rights, just as they don't have the full range of legal responsibility.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[dynamo]

I did exactly that, I and a few friends published a paper when we were high-school age, and I ended up being suspended for two days because the administrators didn't approve of the content. Some reader brought one to class and read it there.. I had put my real name on it because I believed in my first amendment rights and figured I was safe.

I was wrong. The american educational system actively discourages personal expression, at least the part I was put through in So. California. I would not send my kids to be suppressed there.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[justins]

You're wrong, unfortunately. Under the Hazelwood Supreme Court decision pricipals of a school have the right to censor a school newspaper if they decide its contents will disrupt the school day.

That's interesting. I wasn't totally sure that the NEA situation would be 100% analogous to a school, and yes, that would be an important distinction.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[lgw]

I'm amused that you missed the point of the bumper sticker. You seem to think that people in the "lower classes" (to quote the GPP's elitist rant) can't recognize that the Second Amendment is not the first amendment. Perhaps you're frustrated that a group of people believe the Second is more important than the First, when you believe differently? That would miss the point as well.

The Second Amendment was America's first freedom *historically* - in the first second of America's existance as a country, quite a few Americans bearing arms were standing around the surrendering British. :) It's a bit of a stretch, but it's close enough for a joke on a bumper sticker.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[greed]

Just because someone in power does something illegal, that doesn't negate the law, they just hold themselves out to reprimand or reversal.

The phrases you're looking for are "chilling effect" and "lawyer's fees".

Another problem, that is not restricted to young people, is failing to identify a false authority. (For example, asking the police a question about a point of law.)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Kurrurrin]

So you are saying that the media has done its job in presenting an overly biased and slanted representation of the situation in Iraq?

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[j_snare]

Or rather a message was sent that the United States will attack whom ever it wants, when ever it wants.

Or perhaps that perhaps you should open your country up to weapons inspectors and get out of their way as you agreed to when we let you keep your country earlier? Perhaps you should heed one of the last 200 warnings of "No, really, you need to let us in, like you agreed to do."

Just a thought, but that's what most everyone I talk to thinks we went into Iraq for.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[b-baggins]

Or rather a message was sent that the United States will attack whom ever it wants, when ever it wants. So, you (the foreign power) had better not cross us (The United States), or we will find your links to terrorism and hit you with a preemptive strike.

Works for me.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Mr.Progressive]

Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?

I don't understand the reference to psychology and sociology. If you're saying that people are less informed if they study these types of courses (or that this area of study is pointless), you should keep in mind that this is essentially a sociological study.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Children do not have rights until they are adults and the supreme court has ruled over and over again in favor of the schools in any lawsuit over civil rights sadly.

So the police could arrest your son and hold him for a year without charging him? Do you even realize how ridiculous your position is?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[softspokenrevolution]

It actually depends on what state you're in, even if your paper is advertising supported, it is still printed under the aegis of school approval.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it (the ability of a school principle to censor a school paper) varies from state to state.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Minna Kirai]

Once you talk government, you talk first amendment.

Wrong! That's almost as bad as the students in this story. The first amendement does not apply to "government". It only restricts what the federal Congress can do, and has no effect on state or local government officials:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Oh, but they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

understand "FIST ammendment".
<Nelson>Hah hah!</Nelson>

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[Martin Blank]

Was she arrested before the first confession, or brought in for questioning, confessed, arrested, then asked to confess again?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Quikah]

Not in my old HS they aren't (IL public school). 2 semesters of US history, 2 semesters of world history, and 1 semester of government are all required for graduation.

Flag Protection Act; 18 USC 700

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to say this, but it is against federal law to burn the US flag. Have yourself a gander at 18 USC 700, which states in part:

(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Admittedly, this was overruled by United States v Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990), in order to protect freedom of expression. That was nearly fifteen years ago, or about the time some current high school sophomores were born. I'd suspect the impression left with them from the hubbub back in the day was of the complaints about the passing of a law prohibiting this stuff, rather than the issuing of an opinion striking the law down. I'd be more curious to know if they think flag burning is an issue worth discussing than if they know where the law lays.

Now, I'm not saying that my country gives its children adequate education, but that such a law was passed by people who supposedly got a superior education seems curious too.

If you ask me, most people won't have a reason to learn about this stuff until they realize they've been oppressed -- and that's just human nature. And, since the US is a nation of prosperity, we don't want to upset things. So, my suggestion is to start oppressing them in high school (where it is legal) to force them to make cogent arguments. Heh.

$0.02.

freedom of supplying information

[Fuzzums]

it's very simple. you have the freedom of speech, so you should be able to publish everything.

but if you are too critical and say only 50 journalists are allowed at the press conference, you simply aren't going to be one of them. not that you're not allowed, but strangely *chough* your place has been given to a more cooperative journalist.

Re:Normally the other way around

[bshroyer]

Maybe the kids thought the question was whether or not newspapers could publish without _corporate_ approval of stories.

This is exactly the way it works.

It's the editor's job to ensure that articles published in his (or her) paper conform to that paper's standards. Why? Because the paper exists to make a profit.

The New York Times caters to the left end of the political spectrum, and realized long ago that such an editorial stance will yield higher sales.

The Wall Street Journal realized the same, but caters to the right.

The National Enquirer caters to those who don't give a rip.

Take an editorial from any of these, and try to get _corporate_ approval to publish in any of the others, and see what happens. They're incompatible. They target different consumers.

Note, however, that at no point has a federal, state, or local governmental body told any of them what their editorial position will be. In the US, the markets decide.

as i posted on a community blog, its obvious why..

[acroyear]

kids have never known what freedom (of the press) really is.

Schools, in order to deal with lawsuits about how such-n-such kid was "exposed" to a lifestyle or something or other they "shouldn't" have been, have been an absolute hammer of conformity.

School uniforms, dress codes, censorship of t-shirts and buttons, regulations on number of ear piercings, restrictions on where you can and can't spend your lunch hour, restrictions on the books that can be in the library, restrictions on what books from home you can read, censorship of school newspapers and newsletters, random locker inspections, "zero-tolerance" for drugs leading to expulsions for possession of Advil or sudafed or even sharing a cough drop, and of course the prison-level security systems of metal detectors and barbed wire fences...

they've never known what a free society is. A high school history or government class can talk a good story about it, but the truth is they've never seen it, they'll never really know what it means.

In fact, even the examples of Watergate or Iran-Contra have been so perverted and distorted by the right-wing media that they're useless. The worst part is that the right-wingers are using the same so-called "Freedom" of the press and speech to condemn that very freedom.

(Plus, most kids don't get exposed to constitutional instruction 'til their 11th and 12th grade years anyways, so asking 10th graders what they think is pointless, because they haven't even been taught what it means).

As long as kids are never shown what freedom truly is, they'll never learn to respect it. It'll just become a buzzword for saying, "well, I can vote...whatever THAT means".

And two of them ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Each of the proposed Amendments was treated separately ("All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified"), and, in fact, the first Article mentioned was not ratified, and the second Article was ratified in 1992.

And two of them were never ratified.

Re:And two of them ....

[CrimsonAvenger]

And two of them were never ratified.

No. The First Article was not ratified. The second became the 27th Amendment in 1992. The thrid-twelfth became the the first Ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights).

Re:Entirely BS

[carpe_noctem]

Examples: "41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001."

"37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."

I'm sure that my comment is buried too deep in thread to be noticed, but I really dislike these statistics. It's much more fair to state that 37% of americans don't know who actually attacked the US on 9/11. While I'm sure many people actually believe that Iraq was behind the attacks, a question such as "Several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis" actually plants the idea in someone's head by the nature of the question. Most people, out of ignorance, will probably answer "yes".

Now, if you take that poll again with the question rephrased as "What country do you think that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers from", I think that the poll results would be much different.

I'm not defending americans here, but I think that statistics like that are misleading. I believe that the public is more ignorant than they are deliberately misinformed...

Then again, perhaps I'm being optimistic. =)

What do you mean by partially true?

[tonedevil]

Are you trying to say that the award in the lawsuit was partially outrageous?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

The book Coercion does a nice job discussing how individuals and corporations are getting better and better at marketing to/manipulating us. It isn't judgemental of marketeers .. after all they are just people like us .. but it makes a good point that foreign countries have courses in media review, but it is not a standard part of America's education system.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

That solution sounds awfully familiar to me. Oh wait, that's because it's mine. And you know what, my social life was probably FAR more active than any of you that went to school (Maybe to my detriment.) However, I now work as a Lead at a *major* software company. (You've all heard of the company, as well as companies we own.) My salary is 70k, and I'm only 22. I have a healthy respect for my rights, and would fight for them, given cause. Public schools in their current condition are horrid. This is one of the main reasons I'm a Bush supporter. Both him and his brother (my governor) have done quite a bit to improve schools. It's been very visible to me.

We started an underground Newspaper

[randyflood]

When I was in High School we started an underground newspaper.

The Principal, Vice Principal, and the Dean of Students called me into their office and told me that I couldn't distribute it on school grounds any more. I told them to read the Constitution. I told them to go read Tinker v Des Moines.

Who knows? They may have won that if it had went to court. But, they let other groups distribute their literature on school grounds, and they had not published any guidlines for what was and wasn't acceptable to be distributed on school grounds. I waited for them to try to punish me for it, but the punishment never came.

If you want to have any freedom of speech left, you have to be willing to challenge those people who would erode your ability to excercise your right to it.

Honestly, our underground newspaper was silly. It was angsty and comical and rebellious and annoying to anyone who was over age 17 or so. But, at least we cared about freedom of speech...

Linux Torvalds did it!

[ex-geek]

I think the collapse of Communism was a good deal more complex than the claims that Reagan outspent the Soviets.

Which is proven by the fact everybody and his brother claims the be the one who brought the Soviet empire down.

Right-wing Americans claim that Reagan did it.

Conservative Brits contend that Thatcher did it.

Liberal Americans name Jimmy Carter and his focus on human rights issues as the reason for the fall.

Catholics believe the Pope made it happen.

Islamists attribute the collapse to Osama Bin Laden and militant muslims and call Americans arrogant for not acknowledging this

Most Slashdotters see nobody else but Cowboy Neal behind all of this
But I ask you. Can it be a coincidence that the dissolution of the USSR took place in the very year Linus Torvalds posted version 0.0.1 of the Linux kernel on Usenet? I think not. Isn't it obvious? Soviet communism was supposed to be just an immediate form until a new and truly communist society would start to exist. With true communism in the form of Linux out(*), there was no need for the USSR anymore.

(*) MS' Ballmer: Linux is communism

Re:Linux Torvalds did it!

[sp0rk173]

And as Linux-communism fights for the rights of the workers(coders), BSD-liberty fights for the rights of all, to clash in the way nature intended - without coercion in the form of software licenses, with true fairness and decency, in the form of the all mighty, competition-creating fork! Based on the idea that different implementations of the wheel are not recreations, but are neecessary to approach the true form of the wheel, as Plato saw it! Diversity of implementations are a direct result of diversity of ideas, all of which combine to represent an integrated truth of form from which all walks of humanity prosper from! And so I pledge to One License, under csh, with liberty and code forks for all!

"The black bag"

[Pig Hogger]

Aaahhh. Yes. One of the most insightful pieces of ST I ever read...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[homebrewmike]

You're most of the way there. Parents are responsible for the kids. More so when they're young, but kids are a pretty good running commentary of their parents (some genetic influences aside.) If the kids aren't inquisitive, you can be the parents are dullards.

The problem with the government running education, as you alledge, is that WE are the government. Those ill-informed kids have ill-informed parents. And they vote. They are enabling other's political ambitions, which is ruining the educational system. That's why we keep getting stuff like "Intelligent Design" popping up. The parents are morons, and they want to legislate further tripe. There's a school shooting, and all of a sudden the kids need to "work in the community" to learn how to be good.

Utter nonsense.

Kids need to be taught how to reason, how to mine facts from sources, and some basic knowledge in which to navigate the world (Math, civics, Science, and English will do it.)

In a few generations, we'll have informed voters again.

Thats 9 and 10

[Anonymous Coward]

[Amendment IX] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

[Amendment X] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Read alone I'd agree with your reading of the first amendment, but there is more than on that you need to consider. The ones I cited put things in different light.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. The current U.S. Public School System is based on the 19th century german school system, and hasn't changed much at all in 150 years.

That school system was created to produce efficient factory workers and soldiers, not free-thinking scientists and inventors. Why do you think so many historical inventors did terrible in public school?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[ThousandStars]

Exactly. In HS, I got in trouble for recommending that classmates read The Student as Nigger. Although it has a somewhat provocative title and I don't agree with everything it contains, I agree with the fundamental point, which is that schools are designed to push individuals into boxes and form rules around their lives. When I got called into the administration's office, they threatened to suspend me -- and I told them I had nothing to say and would find a lawyer. The synagogue of which I was a member kindly hooked me up with an attorney from the ACLU, and one call was all it took for the problem to go away.

The chief irony, of course, was that by trying to punish me for doing nothing wrong, the school reinforced the exact points made in the essay.

and don't forget

[commodoresloat]

The jihad in Afghanistan. Both left and right want to give Reagan credit for this -- and indeed his admin sent tons of money and weapons to help the future Taliban fight the Soviet empire -- but that money would have been useless without people to do the fighting, and especially the call to global jihad that drew fighters from all over the middle east into Afghanistan. The Soviets were mired in that war for 10 years and lost a ton of resources there, plus it had a huge effect on the Russian population (many Muslims, and many people of other ethnicities, who longed for independence). The right wants to credit Reagan for everything because he is their hero; the left wants to blame Reagan for "creating" al Qaeda by funding the mujahedin, but both explanations are flat out wrong, not to mention completely insulting to the people who actually risked their lives in that bloody war.

Re:and don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

The practice of funnelling money and equipment to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan actually began in the Carter administration.

Re:and don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a really informative and critical review on Amazon of a book written about America's engagement in Afghanistan called "Charlie Wilson's War".

The review was written by William Podmore; the book by George Crile.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087113854 9/ 002-4169733-4890456

Randy

"
Crile, a producer for the US news programme `60 Minutes', has written a hymn of praise for the CIA and its terrorist operation in Afghanistan. He also idolises Congressman Charlie Wilson, a good ol' Texan, a coke-snorting, whisky-guzzling, whoring, arms-dealing, freeloading, hit-and-run drunk-driver, who constantly broke US laws to arrange aid for the terrorist cause.

Crile ignores the fact that the US intervened first in Afghanistan, supporting reactionary terrorists trying to overthrow the progressive government: on 3 July 1979, President Carter signed a secret directive authorising covert aid to the mujehadin. The CIA promoted drug trafficking to raise funds for them. The British, French and Israeli governments all sold arms to them. Only in December 1979, five months after the US intervention, did Soviet troops enter Afghanistan, at the Afghan government's request, to defend the people against the terrorist onslaught.

The CIA, assisted by Thatcher, spent $1 billion a year arming and training more than 300,000 Islamic mercenaries drawn from around the world to fight against Afghani national liberation. Crile tells us that MI6 did much of the CIA's dirty work, `murder, assassination, and indiscriminate bombings'. It was the CIA's biggest operation, far bigger than their terrorist Contra operation in Nicaragua, indeed the biggest secret war ever.

The CIA-organised Contras targeted schools, clinics and hospitals: so did the mujehadin, and more so. The Contras "raped, tortured and killed unarmed civilians, including children" and "groups of civilians, including women and children, were burned, dismembered, blinded and beheaded", as the CIA told a Congressional Intelligence Committee. So did the mujehadin, and more so. The CIA's special favourite was the repellent criminal and fascist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was "responsible for the practice of throwing acid in the faces of Afghan women who failed to cover themselves properly".

In the end, Gorbachev withdrew the Soviet forces from Afghanistan, and the mujehadin proceeded to wreck Afghanistan and attack their sponsor the USA. Crile claims that the withdrawal destroyed the Soviet Union. Not so; as Castro said, "Imperialism could not have destroyed the Soviet Union if the Soviets had not destroyed it first."
"

Re:and don't forget

[commodoresloat]

This is true, but not nearly to the extent Reagan funded them. But as I noted above, the Mujahedin deserve more credit than Reagan for bringing down the Soviets, and that's certainly true of Carter too. Brzezinski's claim to have engineered the whole thing before the Soviets even invaded notwithstanding. And, by the way, look at Steve Coll's book Ghost Wars which I think is authoritative on the history of US involvement in the Afghan jihad -- he discounts Brzezinski's boast quite persuasively.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[toganet]

I totally agree with you, and I have had heated arguments with my friends who are high school teachers about how to go about this, and whether what they are doing does not fulfill these goals.

Granted, they are by and large social science teachers (mainly history), and so see the knowledge they try to impart as direcly related to your stated goals.

However, the big barrier to all this, as you allude to, is the attitude that the student must come first as an individual, and that students should not be screened, categorized, "tracked" or anything else, even with the goal of improving that child's education. Much of that springs from "Uhmerkin" ideals of individuality and privacy that are often twisted to the right under the guise of "patriotism".

Where I give my strongest assent is you point that putting the basics of "good citizenship" FIRST doesn't preclude all the other subjects. I would go so far as to assert the converse: putting citizenship LAST makes all the other subjects irrelevant.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Ghostx13]

I don't usually feed the trolls, but I have to bite on this one.

"Spoken like a true desk-job inhabitant."

This is probably one of the dumbest comments I have ever read on /. . I've worked both manual labor and as "desk-job". Both can be hard, but in totally different ways. I worked in a factory up until I was 22 to pay for college. My dad is an electrician and I've spent countless saturdays in my teens helping him on the side-jobs he used to take. Both jobs would send me home compleatly physically exhausted.

Today I work a desk job. I go home compleatly mentally exhausted. I pretty much always have a head-ache from staring at a computer screen all day. I go home and veg out in front of the TV.

In fact I sometimes really envy my dad because he gets to be out in the fresh air, sunshine, and is being physically active. OTOH he sometimes really envies me because I'm in where it's warm, dry, and I sit on my ass all day.

The point being is, work, if your actually working and not just sitting around, is hard. If it wasn't it would be called happy fun time or something. But it's not. It's called work for a reason.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[bluprint]

Why is this a troll?

Because it doesn't follow the status quo. Duh.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[csimpkin]

I think the issue here is that the school is acting 'en loco parentis', or 'in lieu of parents'. It basically means that the school has the same rights over a minor that the minor's parents have. Just like a minor's parents can stop him or her from printing a story, so to can the school. No first ammendment involved. Also, I don't believe that the Constitution grants rights to minors. Sorry, you don't have the right to free speech until you are 18.

I agree

[SuperKendall]

I was not aware of that study, but it meshes with results I also would imagine - that college students think differently than high-school students.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[TheGeneration]

Legally the principal did not have the right to veto any section of your student Newspaper.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[renderhead]

That's partially true, but the difference is that the government, and by extension, the school, is allowed to control what its own publications say. That's why we have a free market press. If we could trust government news to report everything 100% free from bias, we wouldn't need CNN, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, C-Span, NPR... you get the idea.

I completely agree that the government cannot and should not control the output of any of these news outlets. However, when the government IS the news outlet, we cannot and should not expect them to report news that is contrary to their own interests.

Similarly, I don't expect Fox News to deliver a story detailing evidence of bias in Fox News reporting. I also don't expect CBS to run a story about how great smoking pot can be just because some of their reporters really think it's an interesting and relevant piece.

Everyone with rights has responsibities

[bjsyd70]

On Children's education, those with reponsibilities include: Parents Teachers Children Government Voters Tax payers Citizens If voters elect politicians move the funding for education info tax cuts, then voters are responsible for issues in education. A blanket statement like "Screwing things up" is too absolute and therefore wrong. For example I think my child is at this stage getting a good education from dedicated individuals. Brendan

decline in education due to funding

[Anonymous Coward]

The schools get funding based on:

1. The number of students attending each day
2. Extra money for 'special' students (deaf, handicapped, etc).
3. School lunch program students

The issue is that each school tries to maximize its revenue from the state government by getting the maximum number of students to attend while classifying as many of them as possible in one of the 'extra funding' categories.

This is the root cause for most of the 'education in crisis' / 'we are doing this for the children' press /news stories.

For example, consider the school districts that extended the Christmas break so that students traveling to Mexico to observe the early January Epiphany would not miss school (*cough* *cough* so the school district would not lose tax revenue when those students were absent).

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[Pxtl]

Well, just remember: you might not see much sympathy when China uses that line on you 30 years from now.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Surt]

It's punitive if you're suffering from severe pain or inability to eat due to loss of appetite from cancer treatments, and you cant get cannabanoid treatment because the government doesn't want addicts getting their hands on it.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[TeraCo]

Or perhaps that perhaps you should open your country up to weapons inspectors and get out of their way as you agreed to when we let you keep your country earlier? Perhaps you should heed one of the last 200 warnings of "No, really, you need to let us in, like you agreed to do."

Perhaps you are one of the people the article talks about :)

religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to religion and conservatives.
Religion: It's a big (money making) business.
It's controlling our gvt now, and it's only gotten worse since 9/11.
SCARY

Re:religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the religion. Buddhism, paganism, Hinduism, etc don't scare me. It's the ones that take a book literally and think non-believers should die.

Huh?

[chopper749]

I don't understand.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Qzukk]

It only restricts what the federal Congress can do, and has no effect on state or local government officials:

Wow, I guess when Bush talks about no child left behind, he meant they were all left in Texas.

Oh wait Congress sends federal funds to local schools.

I don't know where exactly you got your ideas from since it has very little to do with any interpretation of the first amendment in any recent history by the SCOTUS. In your view, the police department could walk in to the local newspaper without a court order and demand that they not print any stories about the chief of police's bribery case, since the police department isn't the US congress.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[gobbo]

John Taylor Gatto (the link in the parent post) is one of the only reasonable voices on public education systems that I've heard in a long long time. For the record, my S.O. is an elementary school teacher, and I work in post-secondary education.

The Canadian (and American) system is Hegelian (think leviathan), Taylorized (think Henry Ford), and hegemonic (think corporation and nation-state partnering). I'm saving up money to be able to homeschool the kids... and no, not to protect any ideological or religious belief, unless "curious skepticism" and "attention stamina" and "critical thinking" can be called ideologies.

I worry about the kids growing up surrounded by intelligent, energetic, overnourished sheeple, in a society that is trying to redefine freedom away from ethics and into centralized and delusional moral codes.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[peg0cjs]

Why does there seem to be so much confusion on the matter?

Because of the coverage from most media outlets on the justification for the war in Iraq; most notably, Fox News. It was statements like this that helped confuse the nation:

"Sept 11 was the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world. We are going to war because Iraq helps terrorists and we don't want them to repeat 9-11. Are you behind us?"

While never stating outright that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks, the implication is pretty obvious, and I'm not the least bit surprised that so many Americans believe Saddam was the mastermind behind 9-11. I remember scratching my head and going "Huh?" often whenever Donny Rummy would make the most elegant jumps over the chasm between the truth and what the administration said was the truth.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Guppy06]

"A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press"."

First off, you mean "Voice of America." Secondly, that's a special case since they are also restricted from broadcasting to audiences within the US. A "more better" analogy would be PBS, over which the government has control only over (their share of) the funding, not the content.

A student's perspective

[3nd32]

The majority of comments appear to be from adults. Figured I should provide the perspective of a high school senior. The school I attend is an abberation within the public school system, having a little under 200 students and being focused primarily on technology (our website even has a link to slashdot).

My peers and I have been taught very little about government. We have taken one government class in high school, and it was a joke. It wasn't the teacher's fault - she was trying to meet at least three sets of requirements and we had one semester. We got a brief glimpse of a few topics, and some busywork so her gradebook would have the right number of points in it. Basically, it was a wasted class. Our student government is even worse. We make no decisions beyond our prom theme. What we need is not more classes on government and history. We need fewer restrictions on the teachers, even if that means we aren't all receiving an equal education. An equally poor education is not something to be pursued.

As things stand, I learn nothing in the majority of my classes. This has been the case through middle school. There are exceptions, but most of my knowledge has been gained from independent research, usually to the detriment of my grades.

I'll wrap this up. We need massive educational system reform. Teacher salaries should be considerably higher. There should be a better review process for the continued employment of teachers, and this process should be controlled by employed adults from a variety of areas. It shouldn't be controlled by students, as we would most definitely abuse that power, and it shouldn't be controlled by school administration, as they have already demonstrated incompetence in the process. Class sizes need to be reduced (my school has pulled that one off), and open exchange of ideas should be encouraged, not just permitted when it doesn't "disrupt the learning environment".

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[michaelggreer]

I happen to totally agree, and have a sick friend in CA using pot to ease his pain. But while the law may be wrong, that is not what punitive means. It is not intended to punish.

Not Surprising

[4of12]

A couple decades ago a high school class did a similar survey.

Using tactics similar to push-polling, by phrasing questions in terms of "getting rid of technicalities that coddle criminals", these civics students were able to persuade a frightening majority of Americans to be in favor of abolishing the Bill of Rights.

Current rhetoric, clothed in patriotism and fear of terrorism, is, in fact, persuading Americans that civil liberties are worth sacrificing.

Not that the U.S. has any monopoly on nationalism - the other 2 major world powers, Russia and China, have politicians using nationalism as a distraction from their own inept or corrupt policies.

Khruschev

[delcielo]

The beginning of the end came during the Khruschev era.

Khruschev, unlike Stalin and Lenin, was a patriot for the system and cared about the survival of the USSR and the Soviet system of government beyond his own time of service. He hoped to decrease military spending and increase spending on domestic issues such as agriculture, education, housing, etc.

As long as the leadership (central committe, politburo) was convinced that the USSR maintained military superiority over the US, Khruschev was allowed to be a little more liberal with his spending. During the 1960 US presidential election in particular, there was a lot of talk about the "missile gap" and how the US had languished under Eisenhower/Nixon and needed its military might strengthened. Then, of course, Kennedy was elected and reassured everybody that there was no gap and that the US was indeed strong enough to take on the Ruskies. Add the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis in the mix and the Soviet leadership's grip on the economy closed again.

Khruschev was all but over after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and so was the Soviet economy. As the parent stated Brezhnev's uninspired leadership never challenged the military spending habits. The irony is that by not spending enough domestically, the USSR assured that their economy would dwindle and falter. Gorbachev understood the issues and was working toward solving them as much as he could with increased trade, glasnost, etc. but that put him at odds with the leadership and the military who were more worried about spending to match Reagan's SDI boondoggle. When the coup was attempted it sparked the endgame. The system had reached the tipping point and collapsed in on itself. Gorbachev had liberalized the country enough that it wouldn't stand for the military's coup.

Certainly, Reagan's spending sped up the endgame; but the fall of the USSR really began in earnest when the Soviet leadership ousted Khruschev. While certainly no altruist, Khruschev did indeed believe in his country and wanted it to thrive. Anyone who doubts this should read his speech to the Communist Party Congress in which he denounces Stalin and his policies. It was a move that was daring and shocking in its bravery.

Having said all of that, I'm glad we don't still have a Soviet Union to deal with. I like not worrying about nuclear war every morning, though I wish they'd keep tighter control of their stockpiles.

This terrorism thing doesn't even come close to the anxiety I felt about the Soviets. THAT was a scary time.

Re:Khruschev

[MightyMartian]

> This terrorism thing doesn't even come close to
> the anxiety I felt about the Soviets. THAT was a
> scary time.

Yes, I agree. The Soviets were, even as they dwindled in the 1980s, a far greater threat to the Western world. Perhaps our perspective has been altered by over well over a decade without the Cold War that we think a few religious nutjobs are somehow equatable in any way to the Soviet Union with its vast military complex, lock on power in Eastern Europe and infiltration of Africa and parts of Latin America.

Simply put, Al Qaeda is not much of a threat to Western democracy, unless of course we allow ourselves to have our pants so scared off our asses that we lose all perspective. It's happened before. Japanese Americans and Canadians were horribly mistreated during WWII, and at least in Canada, this sentiment was fostered by people who basically stole these citizens' property without compensation. That's how public perceptions, particularly with underlying hysteria in the mix, can be guided in such directions.

As to the resources of Al Qaeda, well I'm afraid short of forcing everyone to stay in their homes, any individual sufficently motivated by insanity (whatever the justification) is going to be able to do spectacularly awful things; whether its fly airplanes into buildings, park Ryder trucks filled with diesel and fertilizer in front of government building or go whacky in a McDonalds or a subway.

Re:Khruschev

[C10H14N2]

Ah, yes, Latin America. Thank goodness the United States has never done anything less-than-scrupulous there...

*cough*

Seriously... are you serious? I mean, Grenada? Come on...

Re:Khruschev

[Inthewire]

You want to knock American actions and you pick Grenada as the example?
It isn't like there were any Cuban mercanaries or Soviet advisors building an airport there or anything.

Re:Khruschev

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't like there were any Cuban mercanaries or Soviet advisors building an airport there or anything.

And this was our problem because ?

Re:Khruschev

[Qrlx]

Ironic then, that we never had anything like the USA PATRIOT act when we were worried about the Russkies, but now that the USSR is gone, this study comes out and shows our own damn population (and by extension leadership) doesn't even understand what America is founded on.

Remember when the big difference between Us and Them (the reds) was that we had the freedom to travel, without having to "show your papers?"

There's also the asymmetric threat of al-qaeda. They spent $500,000 on 9/11. Our response is to spend somewhere around $200,000,000,000. Oh and then there's the fact that so long as we keep using oil, we'll keep funding Al Qaeda.

The threat is very different, but I don't think it's any lesser. To be honest I never felt that threatened by the USSR but we'll skip that for now. I'm worried that there won't be a "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" in twenty years because some guy in a cave who got one lucky shot tricked us into oustpending him at a ratio of four-hundred-thousand to one.

Simply put, Al Qaeda is not much of a threat to Western democracy, unless of course we allow ourselves to have our pants so scared off our asses that we lose all perspective. It's happened before.

Exactly my point. We have met the enemy, and he is us. What would FDR say to a color-coded Fear level?

Re:Khruschev

[Brian_Confucius]

at least in Canada, this sentiment was fostered by people who basically stole these citizens' property without compensation.

Don't worry, this happened in the USA, too.

Re:Khruschev

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Qaeda is not much of a threat to Western democracy

3,000 deaths on September 11th was an awful tragedy, but it wasn't the end of the world. That many people die on the roads in a month.

However, September 26th 1983 almost was the end of the world.

Surely the world, particularly the West, is very much safer facing a worst case scenario with thousands of deaths, than a worst case scenario with tens of millions of deaths.

Re:Khruschev

[Jason Ford]

I was just reading about U.S. involvement in Latin America this morning. From Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States':

'While demanding an Open Door in China, [the U.S. government] had insisted (with the Monroe Doctrine and many military interventions) on a Closed Door in Latin America -- that is, closed to everyone but the United States. It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the "independent" state of Panama in order to build and control the Canal. It sent five thousand marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution, and kept a force there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years. Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America.'

Grenada is just a natural progression of U.S. foreign policy, no?

Re:Khruschev

[Qrlx]

Hello AC, you've completely missed my point. The threat isn't al qaeda per se, it's our own completely ridiculous response to al qaeda, which is to date is typified by (further) consolidation of power in the hands of a single Executive, abdication of Congressional responsibility, a spending spree that would make SDI proponents blush, a rollback on civil liberties, and furhter "scope-creep" of the military into the realm of "nation-building." Oh, and a perpetual "War on Terror," which unlike the Cold War is a shooting war, and unlike the Cold War isn't a conflict between States but a between State and an Ideology, with the victory condition not of one nation's demise but of democratizing the whole of the Middle East, which I daresay will be a sight harder.

And yes, this probably isn't a threat to the whole of Western Democracy, but if the US goes, that would certainly be a pretty huge chink in the armor, don't you think?

Re:Khruschev

[Inthewire]

Define our.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[jfengel]

"Troll" is a bit harsh, though he's verging into that territory. It is "An outrageous message posted to a newsgroup or mailing list or message board to bait people to answer." I'd call it "outrageous" not because it's entirely untrue, but it is deliberately inflammatory, stated without support, and as far as I can tell rather overstating the case.

I say "overstated" because it's at least partially true. History classes are designed to cast positive light on the US government, and to cover up or lie about the negative. But that indoctrination isn't some massive federal program; rather, it's 50 state indoctrination programs.

More to the point, it's overstated because while the history program is heavily rigged, it's not the entire curriculum. Every teacher I know is there to teach students, and they're not teaching dialectics in chemistry class.

In short, school is NOT some big program designed to create automatons, and you're pushing the bounds of common sense to say so in a single sentence without clarifying what you mean.

So it gets marked "troll" not just because it's controversial, but because of the way it's said. It goes to far and offers zero support. If asked to metamoderate it I'd probably mark it "unfair" because it's on-topic and the poster isn't in general a troller; he's just badly stating an opinion.

You'll note that now he's been modded way up.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Atzanteol]

consequences

Now *there's* a word that I don't think any of the students in question, their teachers, and 90% of slashdot understands.

Many people think freedom of speach means freedom to say and do what you want without repercussions for their actions.

It's like when the Dixie Chicks were suddenly facing boycotts for renouncing the president in Germany. They complained how it was their *right* to do so and that their rights were being limited. They were just unhappy at their fans who were using *their* rights to free speach as well.

Reporting from Sproul Plaza...

[BarakMich]

So I'm reading this First Amendment/Free Speech article and sitting overlooking Sproul Plaza as I do so. I'm a Berkeley student, so I know I have some bias.

I am not at all surprised that high school kids are ignorant. True, this is a generalization -- there are many who aren't, example: I grew up in a very conservative rural town, and even there, there were kids, regardless of their political affiliation (by and large, Republican), who actually knew what 1st amendment protections they had.

The ones that ARE ignorant are not the ones who end up here, behind a booth on Sproul Plaza (for those unfamiliar with Berkeley: You will never see a more wretched hive of free speech and activism). In general, they won't amount to much in the political machinations of the world (oh, they may become CEOs, who knows? but they'll either have to learn something in that timeframe or they're not going to make an impact)

The real trouble is the same old story about high school -- creativity and individualism is discouraged, especially speaking out. Period.

I think my point is to say "What else is new?" and "How does this affect the big picture?". High school sucks, man. Get over it.

"Understand"

[delmoi]

There's a diffrence between understanding something and agreeing with it. These kids may know perfictly well what the first amendment means, but that dosn't mean they have to go along with it if they think it's wrong.

These kids arn't stupid, they're just facist.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Changer2002]

I went to a public school in New Jersey, and up until today I thought civics classes were relics from the 60's.

1st vs 2nd ammendment

[CapnGib]

2nd ammendment = Right to armed militia.

In the context of the constitution, this language means armed citizens with the purpose of protection from tyranical govt, be it a states militia defending states rights from federalism (remember the colonies?) etc. This is inferred since the Bill of Rights primarily is to limit the powers of the Federal government.

Not arms for protection from each other, not arms for gathering food. Those things of course were allowed as there were no laws against them, but they were not garaunteed by the 2nd ammendment. It's just not in there. Your personal right to bear arms is a side effect of this intent.

Protection from the federal government's continual errosion of rights and liberties is THE reason for the 2nd ammendment. It is THE reason you have the right to own a gun.

Now, any "armed militia" that protests federalism is by current definitions "a terrorist group". The Bush "Global War on Terror" is therefore a war on "armed militia" and by extension a war on the the intended protections of the 2nd ammendment. We must therefore repeal the 2nd ammendment in the name of Homeland security, to outlaw the "domestic terrorist militia".

If you want to own some guns for sport and personal protection that would have to be a non-constitutional issue, something subject to federal and state regulation.

Rhetoric asside, who has successfully used the 2nd ammendment to protect the 1st?

Re:1st vs 2nd ammendment

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Not arms for protection from each other, not arms for gathering food. Those things of course were allowed as there were no laws against them, but they were not garaunteed by the 2nd ammendment. It's just not in there. Your personal right to bear arms is a side effect of this intent.

And thus, we need weapons that are the equal OR BETTER compared to those of the federalist army.

Now, any "armed militia" that protests federalism is by current definitions "a terrorist group". The Bush "Global War on Terror" is therefore a war on "armed militia" and by extension a war on the the intended protections of the 2nd ammendment. We must therefore repeal the 2nd ammendment in the name of Homeland security, to outlaw the "domestic terrorist militia".

Yep- that's how I read it to. And given John Titor's prediction that the inevitable result of November's election in 2004 would be civil war in 2005- it's got me scared.

Rhetoric asside, who has successfully used the 2nd ammendment to protect the 1st?

Nobody since 1860- the last time we actually had constitutional rights granted by God instead of by the corporations.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[xeon4life]

No.

Now it's just called US Govt. and you take it with Economics your senior year.

If you want symbolism....

[Amata]

Wash the flag.

Not my quote.

Also, as stated, respectfully burning the flag is the only proper way to dispose of the flag.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[Alsee]

Saddam was however, campaigning to unify rogue terrorist organizations against the USA.

Ohh, there was almost certainly the usual Arab-Isreali nonsense going on, but where did you get the idea that Saddam was trying to do anything against the US? If you had actually been following the story, not only did Saddam destroy his WMD's in the hopes of getting the sanctions lifted (yeah yeah, stupid petty politics made him resist the inspectors and look like he was hiding stuff), but the final US intelligence conclsion was that Saddam actually had hopes of eventually restoring good relations with the US! Remember, the US had formerly been Saddam's benefactor. And why had the US been Saddam's benefactor? Because of the dangerous fundamentalist Iran next door. And that dangerous fundamentalist Iran was still next door, still a threat to Iraq, and still at the top of the US's list of undesired governments. Iran still provided a very same motivation for Iraq and the US to play buddy-buddy. And Saddam really did hope to get the sanctions lifted and get back his cozy position as one of the US's allies-of-convenience.

Saddam was a bastard, but the US has a long track record of being quite generous to politically convient bastards.

-

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[thrash242]

Please, I'm curious...why should cannibalism be legalized?

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[mrogers]

perhaps you should open your country up to weapons inspectors and get out of their way

The US has also refused UN weapons inspections.

as you agreed to when we let you keep your country earlier?

Taking and holding Baghdad was judged impossible in 1991, and it's probably impossible now. The difference is that Bush Sr. had the sense to listen to his military advisers.

Perhaps you should heed one of the last 200 warnings of "No, really, you need to let us in, like you agreed to do."

Warning someone 200 times that you're going to kill them doesn't make it legal to do so. The same principle applies to nations.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Mac Degger]

That's a fine sentiment, but there is one thing it ignores: kids spend just as much time (if not more) at school as they do with their parents. This time distribution must mean that schools have to be parttialy responsible for the education (in the moral sense, as well as the purely scientific/artistic/gymnastic senses) of their charges. Which is where PTA's come in: a way for parents to influence the way the surrogate parents (ie the school) raises their kids in the parents absence.

Irony

[mrogers]

The mean IQ is defined as 100.

Re: C.M. Kornbluth

[FunkyRat]

I agree wholeheartedly. When I read Little Black Bag in the late 1980s and if I thought it insightful then, today I'd have to say it was absolutely prescient. Another story that has stayed with me for over 20 years now is C.M. Kornbluth and Fred Pohl's The Space Merchants about a society where corporate influence over government has become so great that products are allowed to contain unadvertised addictive compounds. These days I keep thinking back to Heinlein's If This Goes On. George Bush is just one step removed from Nehemiah Scudder.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[frankgod]

In fifth grade I circulated a petition to keep my teacher from punishing the whole class at once. It worked, and I got to get and spend recess with my friends. It was important for me because I was in a large school, and the brainier kids were spread out among classes, so I only got to see my friends during recess when everyone went out on the playground.

As far as "who started it" I never got around that--I got bullied plenty more than my share and generally got in just as much trouble, if not more than the bully. Oh well!

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, any law is "punishing everyone."

Banning firearms or marijuana isn't because a few were irresponsible, but because there will always be a few who are irresponsible and it's supposed to keep them from imposing costs on everyone else. That's the whole point. Every libertarian or anarchist argument has to assume that people cannot punish each other unfairly. And I don't think that could be defended with a straight face.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[m3j00]

I'll counter your anecdotal evidence with another anecdote. Here in Alexandria, LA civics/free enterprise (two half credit courses) are still required to graduate high school.

This is a perfect segue to my original point. Lack of standardization in education is a real problem. I find it absurd that a student in a Southern California public school has to follow a different set of rules as a student in the deep south. The federal government should manage all of the nation's public schooling and quit letting local idiots on the school boards impose their own personal morals and values on the children in their community.

My junior year in high school I was suspended for wearing a dress to school (I'm a heterosexual male, fyi). It was homecoming week's "tacky day" and I thought it would be funny to wear a nice old-fashioned floral print dress over my clothes. The principal flat out told me, "It may be unconstitutional, but I'm the boss in this school and what I say goes."

"To hell in a hand basket!"

[PinchDuck]

Um hm. Yeah. Kids these days, they all suck, they are dumb, they have no clue, blah blah blah blah.
The world has been going to hell in a handbasket since Plato's day. People said the same thing about YOUR generation.

Next up: Singers these days! They show their breasts and gyrate in a sexual way! It is just horrible! Why can't they be wholesome, like Elvis?

You gussed it, back in the 50's, Elvis was the evil influence wrecking America. Oh, and those kids were going to hell in a handbasket, too.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech.

You're wrong, because you're stupid.

You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication

Prior Restraint : governmental prohibition imposed on expression before the expression actually takes place

Die in a pool of your own shit, you faggot bitch.

he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for.

Fuck you x5. Did you fucking READ GigsVT post? You're a fucking moron. Read it again, then choke and die, fuckwit.

A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".

Air America? You think the government controls the funds and the employees if Air America radio? You are almost the stupidest fucking moron alive and I hope you die real soon now.

If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.

bwahahahahahaha. Fuck you up the fucking ass you fucking moron dickhead piece of shit.

Sounds like you had a learning opportunity and you failed the lesson.

Pot - Kettle - Nigger.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[slashdot_commentator]

How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?

Lets see. You want public school education to improve but you do not want administrators to have the power to fire underperforming teachers, or use standardized testing to evaluate student achievement in education, and foster the lie that the establishment bestows and protects 1st amendment freedoms.

Sorry. I think capitalism should be abolished and replaced with a meritocracy and a gov't that acts as an environmental advocate, but childish wishful thinking is not a sign of a mature mind, capable of making realistic assessments.

I have zero problems with principals having 100% editorial control over the school paper. It closely reflects today's reality, where a few mega corporations control the country's papers.

When I was going to public school, back in the late '70's, a similar "crisis" came about. The school permitted the use of the intercom in the morning as a "morning radio" station, and would pipe in popular music selected by the student DJ. One day, he started playing Pink Floyd's "Brick in the Wall". The principal felt this undermined the reputation of the "noble" educational mission, and banned its play. The poor DJ vocally protested this censorship, violated the ban, and eventually lost the morning slot. I felt strongly and sympathetically for him, but even I, as a teen, knew that the "noble intentions" of the educator was a lie. Primary school was a vehicle of propaganda, from history, societal morality, to american culture. Its no surprise the principal, wrapped in the flag and 1st amendment, would censor airplay of that song.

I'm not a supporter of using the public school to "lie" to students about how the real world works. You're whining, not addressing the problem. The "solution" is to encourage kids to blog and put up competing school newspapers as websites. If you want some form of gov't imprimateur to the practice, let the journalism teacher evaluate those websites for extra credit. That way, you instill the values of a "free" press, and still reflect the reality of our culture. (i.e. - Official organs spin through their teeth, and soon, you will have to go through lots of little guys for the truth.)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Please, I'm curious...why should cannibalism be legalized?

Why should it be illegal? It was a common religious practice in some parts of the world. It is just recycling meat. Certainly their are health concerns, but most of them are mitigated by proper preparation. If my friends want to eat my flesh after I die and I want to include a provision in my will to allow for that, what logical reason is their to prevent it?

I'm one of those people who thinks space travel will probably happen via generational ships if we don't make ourselves extinct first. Perhaps they will be large enough to support a complex ecosystem and recycle us that way, but just eating the meat is a fairly effective first recycling step. It is also one that is taboo in our society for no real reason.

whole bunch of government guys don't know better

[swschrad]

I have no idea what part of "Congress shall pass no law" these pinhead idiots in suits and ties can't understand, but the citizens have the right to free assembly and association, free speech, free religion, and the pinhead idiots can't take that away.

it is the FIRST amendment, with priority over all others.

you have issues with that, cuba and vietnam and china are calling, and if you let me know, I'll help you pack to live in the world you prefer.

Application of the bill of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Were the Bill of Rights intended only for citizens of the United States of America or residents as well? If they have been broadened to include residents, do they apply to legal aliens only or illegal aliens as well?

Nitpick..

[Anonymous Coward]

You phoenetic spelling gets the point across, but it's spelled "Iraq" in English.

Yes, but what was the question?

[GumphMaster]

What were the students actually asked? Were they asked, "What rights does the first amendment guarantee?" or "What is your opinion of the First amendment?" The first is asking for a literal interpretation, and the second is asking for an opinion (i.e. asking them to exercise their right to free speech).

The survey reads:
"The First Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution more than 200 years ago. This is what it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees."

If the former question was asked then I'd be gravely concerned about the level of English comprehension displayed by the sample audience. However, the statement posed is asking for an opinion on the amendment. Consequently, what we see here is the result of the granted freedoms. Students have an opinion and have a right to express it. Rather than seeing a problem, I see the system working.

Establishment includes pre-existing religions

[SideshowBob]

It is also understood to apply to pre-existing Establishments of Religion. E.g. Christianity is a religious establishment.

Congress shall make no law [treating, honoring, or showing respect for] an establishment of religion [such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.], or prohibit the free exercise thereof [and showing legal favoritism for one is implicitly prohibiting in some form the free exercise of all others]

An official state exhibition of a religion such as displaying the Ten Commandments in a courtroom can be seen as prejudicial against those who practice a religion other than Christianity (or Judaism I guess?)

Re:Establishment includes pre-existing religions

[Anonymous Coward]

What most people fail to see that is the Constitution only addresses how Congress will oversee the States. The first itself states "Congress shall make...". It does NOT state, "Neither the Several States nor Congress shall make...". Contrast this with the other amendments that simply state actions that cannot happen under any circumstances(..shall not be infringed) or explicitly delegate powers to the States(the 10th).

The religion clause is curious as establishing a religion at any level quite clearly violates equal protection.

Perspectives

[Ticklemonster]

Perhaps it's a matter of the kids today seeing where liberal higgledy piggledy-ness has taken us? Remember the saying, "out of the mouths of babes..."

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[caudron]

If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.

Just a quick clarification. A principal at a public school is an agent of the government. Legally, when he speaks, it is as an agent for the municipality under which he is employed. That's why principal's and teachers have to be so damn careful about what they say and do. They fall under a different set of rules in that respect...just like police and elected officials.

While you were sleeping

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be belligerent if I just woke up after a 12-year nap, too!

While you were sleeping, UN weapons inspectors went to Iraq found WMDs, and disposed of ALL OF THEM. Afterwards, because Saddam was jerking them around and they were very thorough, they stayed and continued looking, even though they weren't there, because the Iraqi gov't wasn't forthcoming enough.

Then, after doing a fantastic job in neutralizing the WMD threat of this once dangerous country, the US ordered them to leave Iraq or we couldn't be responsible for what happened to them. Then after we invaded we wouldn't let them back in to keep looking.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid they have you six ways to Sunday on this: it's the school's dime that produced the paper so they can control content. It's not free speech because you aren't in a public place or your home, it's private property and they can, and will, enforce their own rules. The best you can hope for is to seed the school board with more progressive members and get a better principal (offer void in the Bible Belt).

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[slashdot_commentator]

Unfortunately, for me, it didn't end when I was in college. Being a conservative, any proof I offered, was dismissed and ridiculed and my grades suffered in comparison.

Typical whining conservative, blaming the liberals for their failures. No one forced you to go to the particular college you paid money to attend. There are tons of quality, "conservative" colleges, from "University of Chicago", to Yale, to Cornell, to SUNY Binghamton. Its your own damn fault you didn't properly examine the college you attended. Or your parents fault, for not educating that you could be penalized for what you publicly "proved".

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Aidtopia]

If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.

In a public school, the principal is a government employee and an agent of the government. If he/she blocks content, then that is government-sponsered censorship. Here in California, we have an explicit law against such censorship of public school papers. Sadly, it's rarely enforced.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. They want you to vote. They want you to get involved with everything. The slobby masses are the solution. It'll drag the system to the ground.

Depends on Highschool

[Striker770S]

if you asked a kid going to a highschool in the red shaded states, than thats a more probable answer. But to say the least, highschools in liberal states tend to teach more outside the box and are on the top of schools in the country. They just cant ask 1 or 2 highschools.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[slothman32]

You don't have any rights until the that magic moment at midnight, according to cig stores at least, on that anniversery when you get Constitution rights. They can do almost anything to you without fear of reprisal. I thought the usual "tax without repre." applied or do "stupid,"
i.e. young, people not get that?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Doomdark]

Parents are responsible for their child's education, not the government, not their church, not anyone else in the world, them. We've been screwing things up for years by letting the government run education, and at some point, it's going to have to stop.

Ever wondered why this "big bad govt is screwing up our kids" feeling is pretty much unique to US culture? I don't recall ever hearing that in Scandinavia (as a significant component of public opinion). Could it be that the public school system in itself is not really the major problem?

I definitely agree in that in the end it's in the best interest of the parents (when kids are young) and students themselves (when they become aware of the reality... somewhere between 8 and 30 years) to follow up on quality of education, but claiming that the actual act of education should be handled by the parents is impractical, and in the end, ridiculous. Most adults actually have lives outside of just overseeing their kids life... and those who don't, should.

Exaggerated?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think once nuclear weapons are involved, you cannot possibly "exaggerate" it.

Re:Exaggerated?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think once nuclear weapons are involved, you cannot possibly "exaggerate" it.

Indeed. How long have we been hearing about suitcase nukes and dirty-bombs? Kinda' just confirms what you where responding to, doesn't it?

Corporate whore.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are talking out of your ass, corporate whore. You are so eager to be ass-rammed by corporations that you actually belive what you are writing.

If everything was this simple, if the people always were in power, there wouldn't be any dictators in the world.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

You, Sir are misguided. Marijuana was banned because of the paper industry (go read up on it).

Are Firearms banned? I live in UK and perfectly accept armed police, security, even good friends own shotguns. Strange firearm laws here.

Origin of the "church and state" phrase

[silicon not in the v]

Again, Google is our friend. This phrase was originally written by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter(full text in that link). It was referring to the clause you mention to try to describe what that meant. So, to sum it up, that phrase was written down by one of our "forefathers" as a commentary on it, but was not, technically, in the Constitution.

Wow

[The_Genis_mightier]

im sorry. my generation is stupid.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

It's particularly important with subjects like civics, which most people don't take an interest in until their 20s (unless you count listening to Rage Against The Machine). Teenagers sit through the classes with glazed expressions, trying to work out what's going to be on the test, and then ten years later when they actually want to learn about the subject they don't know where to start.

Maybe the problem is that schools are really designed to prepare children for work, but some parents expect schools to prepare their children for life - anything they need to know, the school ought to teach them.

Leftist slashdotters...

[Anonymous Coward]

...don't understand the 1st Ammendment, either

It's typical among the liberals to take the 1st Ammendment too, well, liberally. They believe that leftist speech should be allowed anywhere, while conservative - especially religious - speech ought to be censored in public. These people yell about separation of church & state over something as silly as a mention of deity in government documents, while ignoring nearly two centuries of precedent established in part by those who coined the phrase in the first place. Yeah, Jefferson & Madison both prayed to their Christian god within government halls.

Then, when SCO starts telling lies, they remember that libel and slander aren't protected speech.

Of course, neither is speech that is considered "obscene" (case law establishes these guidelines), nor speech considered to threaten "national security," nor speech that is considered to be "fighting words." Not to mention the mess that is public speech on private property that acts as a public venue.

Oh, but you can libel and slander in a court or on the House or Senate floor if you are a politician. Most state constitutions have that clause.

Look at all of these exceptions; and it's up to the courts to decide what is OK and what is not OK. Sure, the constitution says we ought to have the freedom of press and of speech, but what does that mean? So it's not as cut and dry as the liberal, indignant slashdotter wants us to believe. There is enough slop in the rules where judges have a hard time sorting it out, and you want kids to understand it?

Yep, in spite of the polically correct movement...

[Houkster]

Yep, in spite of the politcally correct crowd we still have a first ammendment right to offend each other.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[AK Marc]

The Second Amendment was America's first freedom *historically* - in the first second of America's existance as a country, quite a few Americans bearing arms were standing around the surrendering British. :) It's a bit of a stretch, but it's close enough for a joke on a bumper sticker.

Uh, no. The first few seconds of America's existance as a country was a bunch of men sitting around talking (and writing) about it. It was later when they needed to take up arms to defend what they declared.

they're rights come from their parents

[avandesande]

These are the rights that they get from their parents... they are confusing them with their constitutional rights. as they get older they will realize their rights are greater than that of a child.
nothing to see here....

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[sonic_ak]

I'd have to disagree that if the government took total control of education that people would simply cease to question authority, be creative, etc. Looking at history, oppression breeds resistance. Although it is clearly not exactly the same for subtle oppression (like the schools discouraging creativity), I believe the outcome will be the same.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[mikesmind]

I'm saving up money to be able to homeschool the kids...

The homeschooling part is not expensive, as long as one parent is home to do it. As far as materials such as books, these are readily available and often for a good price used.

We've moved to the "unschooling" approach, which in many ways is even less expensive. I want my children to be able to think and express themselves, not to mention, love their family. It's an investment in time that will return more value than you ever could believe.

Ever hear of child soldiers?

[MMaestro]

Terrorists have neither the ability nor the desire to destroy all life on this planet (as a full blown nuclear war would have). The Bush administration would like to make the case that terrorism is the gravest threat the US has ever faced, but it simply isn't.

Actually, terrorists are even WORSE than a full blown nuclear war. At least during the Cold War both sides were smart enough to realize 'if I nuke them, they'll nuke me' and therefore never did it. (Or 'if you shoot me, fuck it I'm gonna make sure we BOTH go down.')

In terrorism you have people who are training/telling/preaching that the western world, capitalism and democracy is this 'big bad evil' that soldiers of Allah must fight. Now its no longer the 'young teenage kids' who have to fight and die that people protest about, its all about the 7-13 year old kids who have to fight and die now. Why? Shock effect, 9 year old kids wielding AK-47s and RPGs? No way right? Media effect, American soldiers shooting bombladen children running towards their barracks? We have to pull out! The fact that the leadership doesn't give a shit about what happens to their people? Thats so immoral, that'd NEVER happen so all those news reports MUST be false!

If you watch/read any small/grassroots/extreme liberal news channel/newspaper, theres a LOT of crazy shit most Americans don't know about, let alone consider the existance of. Genocide? Yup, Baton Rouge. Biological weapons being used? Of course, Japan. Kidnapping? We've all heard the stories from South America. Roadside bombs? England had a couple a few years back by the Sinn Finn. The list goes on, terrorism is EVERYWHERE. You just don't hear about it because theres too damned much to report. That and not every terrorist in the world is willing to get interviewed or not put a 3/4 inch hole in a foreigner's head.

Re:Ever hear of child soldiers?

[NormalVisual]

Genocide? Yup, Baton Rouge

Y'know, I thought that last bowl of gumbo tasted a bit different...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[bbtom]

The use of BCE and CE is mostly used by people in interfaith dialogue. It's common usage among the various theologians at my college, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

Of course, if you are pissed off with the idea that it's taking Christ away from chronology you can simply mentally substitute Christian for Common. I'll be sticking to Common Era though.

Of course, I'd much rather measure from the Unix epoch. That, or perhaps the birth of Stallman (unlike the Christian story, whereby the saviour was born TO a virgin, in the GNU story, the saviour was born to STAY a virgin - see below)

http://www.stallman.org/saintignucius.jpg

Brittany Spears has a middle name?

[tekrat]

Man, I gotta brush up on that important stuff. Who knows when it'll be needed on some game show?

All you have to do to understand how stupid America is, is to listen to when Howard Stern interviews some stripper and he asks her a question like "Who's the President of the United States?" AND SHE DOESN'T KNOW!!!!!!

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[twray]

Name names. Blow the whistle. Do something about it. Risk your grades. Risk the acceptance of your classmates. If you don't stand up for what you believe in, you deserve to live in the world as it's thrust upon you.

If not now, when will you speak out? When she says the world is flat?

Want me to put my money where my mouth is? Give me her name, school, class and watch things happen.

No wonder

[readin]

A basic problem is people don't know what the first amendment says. It is common quoted as saying "freedom of expression" and "separation of church and state". It says neither. The amendment as commonly stated does go to far.

The right to freedom of speech was put there to protect the right of people to criticize their government and other powerful people, with no intention that it protect naughty pictures. Now with Supreme Court rulings and campaign finance laws, dirty pictures are protected but criticizing the government is not. No wonder kids are confused.

And let's not forget that the first amendment says congress may not make a law "respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the practice thereof". You can't pick out a religion for special treatment, and you can't make a law that restricts religious practice unless that law is necessary to protect other constitutional rights. Pretty simple.

If "separation of church and state" is in the first amendment, why is the state allowed to enter church property to make an arrest? Why are crimes committed on church property prosecutable?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[wed128]

I had a teacher in high school who had similar habits, albiet she leaned to the far left. This kind of reinforcement of opinion is sickening, and even if i did agree with it, I would disagree with the presentation of it as fact.

Our educational system needs change in this respect.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Marijuana was banned because of the paper industry (go read up on it).

I'd consider a garden variety toker to be fairly innocent.

Are Firearms banned?

Live in DC? They are banned some places and restricted in others. Criminals, being criminals, get them illegally anyway. Gun control has not been shown to reduce crime. Instead, it may increase it.

flag burning not illegal

[j.a.mcguire]

These kids were responding from their moral code, flag burning may not be illegal, but it's not right.

this makes me want to vomit

[commodoresloat]

It's amazing to hear people using the election in Iraq to justify the Bush policy. Don't get me wrong; it is a great turning point for Iraq, but Bush stood in the way every step of the way! First he wanted to hand power to the criminal Chalabi. Then he wanted to put Bremer in charge as the new Saddam with an American face. Then he wanted phony parliamentary elections that the citizens couldn't participate in. It's only because the (Iranian!) religious fanatic Ayatollah Sistani fought for real elections that we are finally getting them (and even then, the voters don't know the names of the candidates they're voting for -- there were even candidates who found out they were on the lists who said no, they weren't running!). And Sistani, remember, pushed for elections only because he thought it was the best way to kick the US out of Iraq!

And even when the Bush admin finally agreed (were forced to agree) to elections, Bush made sure that elections were postponed until after the US election!!! No matter how many Americans and Iraqis were killed in the meantime. Now he's gloating over having single handedly brought democracy to Iraq! It's nauseating. And the media swimming in it, like they're amazed Iraqis know how to stick a piece of paper in a box. This comes after we learn that the US has given up its search for the weapons that supposedly started this war in the first place. And you call the left hypocritical??

Finally, a sobering thought on this from an Iraqi blogger: "The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America... Congratulations Bush- we are a threat now. " (from riverbend).

Re:this makes me want to vomit

[Leo McGarry]

Then he wanted phony parliamentary elections that the citizens couldn't participate in.

I think you're thinking of the argument over caucuses versus direct elections. The administration was in favor of a caucus system, while some others wanted direct elections instead. I bet the people of Iowa would be surprised and disappointed to hear that you think caucuses are "phony."

It's only because the (Iranian!) religious fanatic Ayatollah Sistani

Sistani is Iranian by birth, but he left that country for Iraq when he was a young man because he subscribed to a different interpretation of Shia Islam than the one followed in Iran. Also, he's not a fanatic. He's really quite moderate as Islamic mullahs go. Iranian Shia consider him an apostate, in fact. So do Wahabbists, but hell, Wahabbists consider everybody to be apostates, including other Wahabbists.

even then, the voters don't know the names of the candidates they're voting for

Yes, I agree that it would have been better if the Iraqis had chosen a caucus system instead of a direct election. But progress is progress.

Bush made sure that elections were postponed until after the US election!!!

Um. The Iraqi government picked the date of the election, not the US government.

Now he's gloating over having single handedly brought democracy to Iraq!

Wow. Project much?

And you call the left hypocritical??

No, I call you hysterical. I can understand how you might be confused. The two words are infuriatingly similar in both spelling and pronunciation.

Finally, a sobering thought on this from an Iraqi blogger ... riverbend)

The "Iraqi" blogger known as "Riverbend" was debunked about four months ago, I think. Turns out "she" is actually a fortysomething businessman from Saudi Arabia who made up completely false stories about what was going on inside Iraq, stories that got eaten up by leftists everywhere who pointed to them as proof that Iraq was in trouble. None of it, not one word, was true. Google will help you check your sources in the future.

Re:this makes me want to vomit

[commodoresloat]

Sistani is Iranian by birth, but he left that country for Iraq when he was a young man because he subscribed to a different interpretation of Shia Islam than the one followed in Iran. Also, he's not a fanatic. He's really quite moderate as Islamic mullahs go. Iranian Shia consider him an apostate, in fact. So do Wahabbists, but hell, Wahabbists consider everybody to be apostates, including other Wahabbists.

Sistani is not an Iraqi citizen - he can't even vote in the election. And as far as I'm concerned, he's a fanatic -- he wants Iraq to be an Islamic state. Yes, you're right, he'd be preferable to Moqtada al-Sadr or to Zarqawi's thugs, but he's still a fanatic. Read his website sometime.

Yes, I agree that it would have been better if the Iraqis had chosen a caucus system instead of a direct election.

That was never what I said. But now I see you're just distorting things and lying. I think we should have seen direct elections back in early 2004 -- when Bush wanted Chalabi or Bremer to be the new Saddam.

The Iraqi government picked the date of the election, not the US government.

Um. That would be Iyad Allawi, formerly a carbomber with the Baathists and then a murderer with the CIA, hand picked by the Bush people when it turned out that Chalabi was not only a criminal but also likely working for Iran. And Allawi's (puppet) government chose the date at the insistence of the Bush Administration that the end of january was the soonest we could do it. So, yes, I do see Bush's hand in that.

No, I call you hysterical. I can understand how you might be confused. The two words are infuriatingly similar in both spelling and pronunciation.

Thanks for the tip, Webster; care to make a real point or are we just degenerating into ad hominems and phony pedantry?

The "Iraqi" blogger known as "Riverbend" was debunked about four months ago, I think.

You think wrong. At least, I could find no mention of it on google. And riverbend is still blogging -- the post I quoted was from the past week or two. There are plenty of people speculating that she is secretly a fan of Saddam Hussein but I couldn't find anyone supporting the wild-ass conspiracy theory you claim. Sorry, but I think you're just lying.

Re:this makes me want to vomit

[Leo McGarry]

he's a fanatic -- he wants Iraq to be an Islamic state.

Sistani has encouraged his supporters to participate in the political process, and his discouraged them from backing an Islamist government. Sistani is an apolitical fundamentalist, which makes him more our friend than our foe. Freedom of religion, remember?

That was never what I said.

You criticized the fact that there are lots of candidates on the ballots, and that the ballots weren't announced until late in the process. These are the things that a caucus system would have attempted to correct. So we agree: Caucuses would have been better. But, as I said, better some than none.

I think we should have seen direct elections back in early 2004

Elections for what? Remember, not only did Iraq not even have a legitimate constitution then; it didn't even have a plan for writing one. First a plan had to be established, only then could it be put into motion. If you want to complain that the process took too long, complain to Lakhdar Brahimi, UN special envoy responsible for helping the Iraqis establish their plan.

But personally, I think you'd be a dumbass to complain about the time. Postwar reconstruction can take decades. To go from a complete power vacuum to having elections for an interim assembly in less than two years is a remarkable achievement.

That would be Iyad Allawi, formerly a carbomber

You've been reading too much Baathist propaganda. Which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. The problem arises when you stop considering the source and you start believing the Baathist propaganda. On al-Jazeera, Allawi has been accused of everything from being a terrorist to being a child molester to being on the CIA payroll to having -- horror of horrors! -- a Jewish grand-uncle. None of it is true, of course. And yet the stories live on, repeated by people who seem to be in love with the idea that Iraqi democracy might fail. I don't think most of these people are actually opposed to Iraqi democracy, of course. Some certainly are, but most of them are just more enamored with the thought of seeing the US fail, and completely bereft of an understanding of the gravity of the situation. These are the ones who giggle at the prospect that 25 million people might continue to live in fear or, worse, totalitarian oppression if it means that the US might suffer a setback.

hand picked by the Bush people

Allawi was chosen by the Iraqi Governing Council, an independent body of Iraqi citizens who established the Iraqi Interim Government in May 2004, under the advice of Lakhdar Brahimi. Nobody from the administration, State or the CPA was consulted.

And Allawi's (puppet) government chose the date at the insistence of the Bush Administration

Sigh. Facts just run right off you like water off a duck's back, don't they? "Bush picked the date." No, the IIG picked the date. "Well, Bush made them pick the date." Whatever.

At least, I could find no mention of it on google.

Look harder. It was big news. The story broke right before the two guys from "Iraq the Model" visited Washington. There was an LA Times story, I think. LexisNexis will give you want you want.

Re:this makes me want to vomit

[commodoresloat]

you're a troll. There isn't anything anywhere about riverbend being a forty year old man who lives in saudi arabia, and if you spent five minutes on the blog you'd see how ridiculous that sounds. you're full of shit. And you completely misinterpret half of what I say so you can argue with straw men. I'll leave you with your straw men then, while I go back to the real world.

Re:this makes me want to vomit

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: "I lose. I am teh suck. I slink off in shame."

Bwahaha.

Re:this makes me want to vomit

[commodoresloat]

Show me the L.A. Times article that talks about riverbend being a 40 year old man from saudi arabia and I will not only eat my hat; I will say "I am teh suck" out loud while you "bwahaha" at me. It won't happen because it doesn't exist. Because, as noted earlier, you just made it the fuck up, because it's easier than coming up with actual arguments to refute what I was saying. Moron.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[staeiou]

I'm sorry, but your principal and/or school board owns the presses. He/she/they also "hired" you to run a publication, and are "paying" you in school credits. If the Commander in Chief or the Secretary of Defense doesn't want something printed in the US Army Field manuals, they have complete control over that. Just because they are the government doesn't mean that everything they regulate is censorship.

Now, if you were to spend _your own_ money on a paper, printed it yourself, didn't do it during school-time, didn't distribute it in a way that interrupted class, wasn't obscene, then it would be cool. Learning to deal and negotiate with authority is one of the steps of maturity. Just like a job, you have to follow the rules that your company sets up. In the "real world," if you work for a newspaper, you've gotta do what the owner of the paper says. He/she is paying you, and whatever you do on company time can be regulated, and whatever you create on company time could not belong to you any more.

There was a situation in my town where the staff was split over the issue of publishing the Abu Gharab prison photos. The owner and editor made the final decision, even though they were in the minority.

What I Learned from Sports

[Tony]

But what life skills are actually learned in sporting programs? Instead of cutting sports, they cut the arts, funding for computer labs, and so-called "media offerings."

Everything I need to know I learned from sports.

I learned that the bigger you are, the more likely you are to beat the shit out of smaller people. As a smaller person, I learned the faster you are, the more likely you are to avoid a beating. As a slower person, I learned I was fucked no matter what I did.

I learned the better you were at useless activities (usually pushing a spherioid through some sort of goal) the more likely you were to get laid. Corollary: I learned how to cope with blue balls.

I learned about teamwork. It takes a team to truly humiliate the weakest player.

I learned about the political system. Important players didn't need to work to get good grades. Not-so-important players (say, those on the bench-warming team) better bust their asses.

I learned about loyalty. Admiring anything about the other team that wasn't a cheerleader leads to certain pain.

You can learn a lot about the real world from sports.

The most important thing I learned: the head of our basketball team in highschool is now the manager of a gas station. At 37.

Re:What I Learned from Sports

[Anonymous Coward]

You certainly didn't learn how to spell "spheroid", though... Pity. If you had, you could have written comments that someone would have actually read, and maybe even admired, contrary to what You have learnt from sports.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[lgw]

You're over-analysing the joke - but I guess that's normal on Slashdot. ;)

Citizen or Consumer

[jsares]

We lost all our rights when we allowed our citizenship to be traded away for being consumer whores.

Now they teach kids about interest rates instead of their inalienable rights.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Narchie Troll]

You couldn't be more wrong.

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school-house gate." -- Justice Abe Fortas, Tinker v. Des Moines majority opinion.

You think that's it?

[kuzb]

Kids in the USA don't understand *a lot* of things. It's no shock to me that they don't understand their most fundimental laws.

I remember having a conversation with one who claimed, in no uncertain terms, that the US invented democracy. Hell, democracy isn't even an english word.

Another had no idea that Canadians burned down the Whitehouse in the war of 1812, and went so far as to tell me that I should get a history lesson. Such irony.

Not only do american schools do a truly *terrible* job of teaching american history, they do an even worse job of teaching any kind of world history. Most of them grow up thinking America is the center of the universe.

I understand this is a bit of a generalization, I apologise to those americans who took their education seriously enough to get their facts right. However, a surprising number are completely clueless.

Re:You think that's it?

[petrus4]

>I remember having a conversation with one who >claimed, in no uncertain terms, that the US >invented democracy. Hell, democracy isn't even an >english word.

That's a sick joke...but it is also highly typical. What the US in fact invented is probably the single *least* robust implementation of democratic government in history. The main two reasons for my saying this are a) the Republican model...ergo, that the head of state/figurehead for purpose of sheeple worship and the head of the executive branch are one and the same person...which of course has led to the kind of mindless worship of the presidency that has been at least partially responsible for allowing Bush to get away with his current excesses...and b) the electoral college, which from a genuinely representative point of view is insane...because it still allows someone who is unpopular to win an election on a technicality.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this...but I also know that the people who flame me will a) primarily consist of brainless Texans/Southerners, and b) do so on the basis of purely reactionary emotionalism...and so I'm therefore almost certain to ignore it. The simple fact is that virtually any other *non-republican* democratic model in existence which also does not include the electoral college is going to be far more resistant to coup than the US system...and when the US system finally undeniably crashes and burns completely (which it is currently on the brink of doing, or possibly already has depending on who you ask) you will then see that I'm right about this.

How long are you going to keep crowing to people about how "free" you are, when it becomes more readily apparent to the rest of the planet on a daily basis that the opposite is in fact true? Bush and the Palpatine wannabes in his cabinet are in the final stages of a complete coup/derailment of the democratic system there...is it going to require him to in plain sight before you finally wake up and see him for the monster that he is?

Re:You think that's it?

[petrus4]

is it going to require him to execute people in plain sight before you finally wake up and see him for the monster that he is? --- is how that should have read...I hit submit by accident.

By that though I also don't mean the usual procedure for capital punishment...I mean martial law and other such things.

Flag burning isn't legal

[H20Boodle]

So much for belittling our kids for not knowing about the first ammendment. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/flagbur ning/topic.aspx?topic=flag_statelaws

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Narchie Troll]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Section 1 of the the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First is applicable to state and local actions as well.

Our Un-American Schools

[Anonymous Coward]

And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!

An interesting essay on how our very school system repudiates the fundamental American values. See particularly chapter 3, as well as the section "Democracy Must be Experienced to be Learned" from this document

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[10101001 10101001]

Also, I don't believe that the Constitution grants rights to minors. Sorry, you don't have the right to free speech until you are 18.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. The Bill of Rights is only a listing of protections of rights that inherently exist. They're there in an attempt to prevent having another bloody revolution because the government because too powerful and ends up pushing its people to overthrow it.

Having stated that, there's clearly nothing to distinguish this protection based on age (though the statement of "all men are created equal" could be claimed as only applying to males). The point is more that adults (read, 18+ year olds) are the only ones with the power/ability to seriously overthrow the government, and most parents aren't interested in helping protect the rights of their children; ie, most parents are bad parents.

So, it's not at all a question of if children are granted rights. The only real question is at what point will the children be willing and able to rise up against their parents/the government to rage a war to stop such Draconian law. I can only guess what the new "age limit" will be. Maybe it'll be 6-7, when the kindergarteners first reach school and are exposed to curse words. By that point, though, curse words won't really exist (though racist words might do), so they'll have to progress to backing morally reprehensable positions to shock/awe their peers.

Not a good comparison

[Tony]

The comparison would be skewed. I suspect that the ratios of well-educated to not-well-educated is different between the college-bound and those that don't go to college.

I'd like the study to be done on our political representatives, all the way up to the President.

What kind of results would we get there?

For those who are interested...

[vdthemyk]

Ok, I'm probably not the first one to do this, but I wouldn't be happy with myself if I didn't do this. For those who would actually like to read the results of the survey, check out this site, http://firstamendment.jideas.org/results/results.p hp. I feel it is very important that those who report the results of a survey should understand the Methodology of the survey first. We live in a world of headlines and AP articles that do not divulge the full story. The reason why these students answer these questions so erratically can be mixed. However, the most flaming questions brought up in this article are found at the end of a 53 question survey. After looking through the verbage, I can see how a student would get tired of reading all the questions and answering. Check out question 40, (the first real question about the 1st Amendment). It actually comes back as only 12% strongly agree that the First Amendment goes to far. However if you look at question 42 of the student survey, you'll find only 2% of the surveyed strongly agreed that people should not be allowed to express unpopular opinions. I guess my point is, a lot of the world will take that little one page article they see on msnbc.com, cnn.com, and such and run with it. Instead, don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution and don't believe everything that gets posted on the web or slapped in a newspaper article. It's a big world, go explore it!

Re:For those who are interested...

[vdthemyk]

PS... It's 63 questions long and I feel question 60 shows how weighted the survey was against lower income families...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[revery]

That's a fine sentiment, but there is one thing it ignores
Not at all. My point is that the buck rests with parents. Parent's must choose where to send their children to school, they must know the teachers, the curriculum, the principal, the school board, etc. It all rests on the parents. The school has no authority and the kids know it. The teacher can do nothing to the children, and the kids know it. If I was Steve Ballmer, I'd be dancing around the room chanting and clapping, PARENTS, PARENTS, PARENTS...

I'll even go one step further and say this. I think the real issue rests with fathers and (many/most/some) men's lack of desire to demonstrate any significant leadership in the life of their children. I know that personally, I would frequently prefer to let decisions be made for me and pretend that I have no power/responsibility in my family's life. This sort of thing has to change.

Well, lets look at the source of the problem.

[Shadow of Eternity]

Namely, school. Think about it, these students are answering based on what they have been taught to believe as their rights. "Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." Lets take this apart bit by bit. First off, students aren't granted religeous freedom. Trust me on this, i've ALWAYS had at least 3 shades of hell to get even the time i took off for the High Holidays (Rosh Hashana etc) taken off my attendance records as "unexcused absences". Ever other minority student i've talked to has had the same problem with their holidays. So theres your answer as to where that view came from. Next up we've got the newspaper issue. I've got two words for you: School. Newspaper. School newspapers are not allowed to publish without being put through a censorship process that would make the orwell proud.

Understanding Your RIghts

[queenb**ch]

As part of an experiment in political science in college, we hand copied the Declaration of Independence on to notebook paper and took it to a local mall and tried to get people to sign it. The really sad part is that no one would sign it. We were called "Communists", "Anarchists", "Socalists", "Wierdos", and a variety of other epithets. Mall security ended up having to resecue us from a very physically threatening mob.

All in all, it was quite educational as to people's stance and understanding of their rights. If you don't know what your rights are, will you know if someone is violating them?

2 cents,

Queen B

adults?

[rokali]

adults would probably fare worse, I'm guessing a 1/4 of them know the kids do

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[VirtuaKnight]

In my school in NC, there's a course required for graduation by the state called ELPS (Economical, Legal, and Political systems). It rolls Civics in to the curriculum. Also, schools here offer AP US Govt.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[cpt kangarooski]

There is really no significance to it being the first amendment numerically. The original Bill of Rights had twelve amendments in it. Only the last ten were ratified (ergo the third proposed amendment became what we call the first amendment) originally. Another was ratified not long ago and became the 27th amendment. The last one of the original twelve has still not been ratified, and likely will not be because it's very impractical.

Actually, yes . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

". . . you must believe that ordinary citizens should be able to possess fully-automatic rifles, explosives, and other arms . . . "

That is the intent, yes. Remember the Founders had just finished an armed revolt against their government. Read the writing of the various people involved in the revolution and subsequent establishment of a Constitutional government (". . . it squints toward monarchy . . ."). Many of them were well aware that even with the best of intentions their new system could turn toward totalitarianism (monarchy, plutocracy, corporate fascism, theocracy, whatever).

These people read their history carefully, and recognized that EVERY FSCKING GOVERNMENT in history ended up oppressing and abusing its citizens.

So, yes, we do have the Constitional right to any weaponry we can get and learn to use, up to and especially including current military weapons. The Founders understood that the leaders of a nation tend to stay upright and responsible to the people when they have nooses around their necks . . . or automatic rifles aimed their way.

New Hampshire has the right motto: "Live Free or Die." Deal with it.

Happy Monday,
Mal the Elder

PS Yeah, I'm too damn lazy to log in, and I could care less about karma points.

Re:Actually, yes . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

That's by far the best comment in this whole .... discussion. So first of all, whoever has the points, mod it up! So, what it's anonymous.
Anyway, there is one important sentence: we do have the Constitional right to any weaponry we can get and learn to use, up to and especially including current military weapons.
My question is: does ability to press the trigger mean that someone knows how to use the weapon? That's the .... problem with automatic guns in everybody's house. Everyone can press the trigger, unless they happen to have no fingers, but even then they would find a way. But it doesn't mean that they know how to use them. Because "how" includes not only mechanichal maintenance, but also knowledge of when, and whether the ends justify the means. And also how to store the weapons safely so 14-year old kids frustrated with their last math test don't go rampaging over the school. That's certainly not what the guns are for, and that's not what the founding fathers intended them to be for. Unfortunately, every nitwit in this country can get hold of one and they don't really care who else can get hold of even their own gun.

Re:Actually, yes . . .

[J'raxis]

Oh, I quite agree with this. I was just posting glibly because I thought it was mildly amusing to back the original post into a corner of his own making.

New Hampshire has the right motto: "Live Free or Die." Deal with it.

Yep. NH has some of the least-restrictive gun regulations in the nation, too. Their state constitution does one better than the federal and actually enshrines a right to revolt, not just possess weapons that might come in handy. This is where us Free Staters are re-settling eventually if the project works out.

Nice Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good work, I agree with you, and it is nice to see someone else who is sick of this stuff.

mandate: schools must teach about the Constitution

[Alsee]

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on September 17

Oh joy! If they dedicate THE WHOLE DAY to it (woo hoo!), and they keep the lunch break short, they may be able to squeeze in a full FIVE HOURS! Yeehaa!

Hell, half the kids would probably need the full 5 hours just to read the damn thing. And that's without stopping to look up the words with more than two sylables in a dictionary.

-

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[AK Marc]

OTOH, if they did, then you should have done as I suggested. You would find that the principal couldn't have stopped the activity in this instance.

Of course he would have stopped it. Kids get suspended all the time for activities off school grounds. If they had, on their own time, gone to Kinkos and used no school time, money, or facilities, but tried to distribute on school grounds, they could have been disciplined for it. Even if they targeted school kids at times and places that were outside school, they could have been disciplined. You obviously haven't been keeping up with the reach of school punishment.

Conversely

[Skrybe]

It's interesting to ask the same question in other countries. Here in Australia if you asked the same question kids would say they had the right to free speech etc. Except they don't, at least not constitutionally. So many kids (here at least) seem to assume that we have the same constituion and laws as the USA.

I wonder what it's like in the UK and other countries?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the stuff that gets posted and modded up here, it is not surprising that the post got modded down.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[ardnian]

LOL...That's exactly what I thought after reading the comment... :)

[OT] Re:Accuracy

[Craig Davison]

Or Chile. A recent event you may remember happened on the anniversary of the US-sponsored coup.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Billly Gates]

All the amendment says is the government can't prosecute you under X circumstances.

It does not mean you constitutional rights at school or work. Freedom of speech means you can get fired at work for example.

But at my former highschool they had drug sniffing dogs check all the automobiles and school lockers. If you refused the search that gave them resonable doubt. Nice hu?

Again the courts ruled in favor of the school.

But can the government lock your son or daughter without trail? Absolutely. If he/she is defined as a terrorist than due processes no longer applies.

Short circuit

[rumblin'rabbit]

Some have suggested that politically correctness was a good idea that went wrong, or perhaps was just misunderstood.

Garbage. It was an attempt to short-circuit political and academic debate in favour of a single point of view, sometimes through repressive means.

PC suffered terrible publicity, was attacked by civil libertarians and defenders of academic freedom, and was occassionaly challenged in the courts. It deserved everthing it got.

And yes, it was a pretty easy target for conservatives. It was a pretty easy target period.

Re:Short circuit

[randallpowell]

It was an attempt to short-circuit political and academic debate in favour of a single point of view, sometimes through repressive means.

More "liberal bias" Fox News keeps yelling. I hve noticed that conservatives tend to arm wave a lot while liberlas use big words. Makes me wonder what our gov has degenrated to?

Re:Short circuit

[handslikesnakes]

And what "single point of view" would that be?

Read it again

[jgardn]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America; and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We are pledging our allegienace to THE flag and to the republic that our flag represents. If you haven't noticed, flags are symbols, and this piece of cloth happens to be a symbol for the greatest nation on the face of the earth, in the entire history of the earth, probably forevermore. It also stands for the ideals that our nation stands for, which are what our country was founded over, and what our soldiers and citizens bleed and die for. They are:

* One Nation - We can unite, even though we are different. Let's end all the useless wars of old Europe, all the pointless violence, and unite behind common ideals.

* Under God - Only God can rule man. If a man thinks he can rule man, he is a tyrant and should be killed. That's why we went into Germany, into Japan. That's why we freed Cuba and the Phillippines in the Spanish-American War. That's why we fought against our own blood in the Civil War. That's why we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and why we promise to fight in Syria, and North Korea.

* Indivisible - We have united, never let us separate! We hold our elections and have a system of government wherein the minority can voice its opinion, and the majority cannot trample their rights. There is no need to divide, not now, not ever.

* Liberty - The concept that man has a free will that no other man can impose upon it. You believe this, don't you? Man is free; that freedom came from God. It cannot be taken away by man.

* Justice - The concept that men are accountable for their crimes, and that men have a duty to exact those punishments or suffer the wrath of God. In other words, if your neighbor has his jewelry stolen, it is a crime. As a society, we have a responsibility to catch the criminal, exact a punishment for his crimes, and return what we can to the owner.

* For all - No one is beyond the law in our nation. No one is above another. This applies to all - men, women, children, blacks, whites, Canadians, and Americans.

One day, your country will begin to understand these ideals, perhaps to the point that you will adopt them into your government.

Re:Read it again

[Qrlx]

* Under God - Only God can rule man. If a man thinks he can rule man, he is a tyrant and should be killed. That's why we went into Germany, into Japan. That's why we freed Cuba and the Phillippines in the Spanish-American War. That's why we fought against our own blood in the Civil War. That's why we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and why we promise to fight in Syria, and North Korea

I ran your explanation through the Bullshit Translator and it came back with this:

Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See His banner go!

Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!

At the sign of triumph
Satan's host dost flee;
On, then, Christian soldiers,
On to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver
At the shout of praise;
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise!

Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!

Like a mighty army
Moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
Where the saints have trod;
We are not divided;
All one body we,
One in hope and doctrine,
One in charity.

Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!

Onward, then ye people,
Join our happyy throng,
Blend with ours your voices
In the triumph song;
Glory, laud, and honor,
Unto Christ the King:
This thro' countless ages
Men and angels sing.

Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!

Re:Read it again

[jimmyfergus]

I'm sorry I don't have time for a full response to your post and the others in a similar vein. Most seem to be along the lines of "it may say flag, but it doesn't really mean it, it means what it represents, and anyway, we pledge alegiance to other things too". I was already aware of this. It's still ludicrous and I reject the notion that flag waving is laudable.

One day, your country will begin to understand these ideals, perhaps to the point that you will adopt them into your government.

One day, perhaps you'll travel a bit, and realise your country isn't unique, and many other people are at least as free as you, and they typically don't shout about it nearly as much. You also may come to recognise that the recently added "under God" is a minor repudiation of freedom in itself.

For the record, I am a great admirer of most of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, indeed all the things America is supposed to stand for.

Re:Read it again

[jimmyfergus]

I didn't pick up on this. I might not have been so polite in my response if I had:

the greatest nation on the face of the earth, in the entire history of the earth, probably forevermore

Have you ever travelled abroad? And I mean longer than to just complain they don't speak English and you can't get a good burger? Long enough to spend time with some locals and get some understanding for the country?

It's small minded, ignorant thinking like this that enables the state of denial about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and other disgusting, oppressive and criminal abuses of US power. And no, most of those in both prisons are not "Terrorists Who Hate Freedom"(tm), the majority (the vast majority in AG according to the red cross), are completely innocent. Or at least they were before they went in - in their shoes many would be tempted to kill a few soldiers had I been tortured and buggered by their compatriots. All of which are a complete repudiation of everything the US flag is supposed to stand for and in direct violation of the US Constitution. (Hint: inalienable rights are not held by US citizens alone).

Disclaimer required for the hard of thinking: The fact that I abhor some of the behaviour of US governments does not mean I hate American people, hate the country, reject or lack respect for its founding documents, etc. etc.. It is possible to like and respect a country and to criticise it. Indeed, as some of your founding fathers pointed out, it's a duty.

1301 Comments and Counting

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it matters, but is there a post that has generated more posts than this?

Exercising my first amendment right while I still can. I wonder if we'd get as many posts if it were the second amendement they didn't understand?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Clansman]

Well, you selected the 'government' so I guess that makes it your fault, ultimately,

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[dedeman]

I'm curious, was this a state or private school? I would think that if it was private, then the "authorities" wouldn't have had any real power to keep you in or out, especially considering the circumstances

I go to school in Albany, NY, and we know quite well the definition of cold. I even read in that student paper today that this very thing happened over the weekend, but not to the same degree (no pun intended). I don't live on campus, and I'm glad, but this being a state school, the campus security are real cops.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[starrsoft]

"Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported."

Doesn't matter! If I go out and start a newspaper, and it's 100% advertising supported, which means that I have no out of pocket cost, I still have full editorial control and rightfully so! It doesn't matter whether I'm making a profit, losing money, or breaking even,; it does't matter whether I want to charge my subscribers, whether I want to cover my costs with ads, or whether I want to do a George Soros and pull it out of my pocket for the public good: I still rightfully have frickin' full and totally legit editorial control. It also doesn't matter whether it is a private person (me) doing it or the gov.

Neither do slashdot editors

[nwbvt]

Most of what this story isn't that kids "don't understand" the first ammendment, they just feel, to quote the article, "goes 'too far' in the rights it guarantees". Thinking that newspapers shouldn't be allowed to publish anything they want is not the same as thinking they can't publish anything they want. And the illegalization of flag burning and Internet censorship are not radical beliefs, but rather things that have been attempted.

You may disagree with these attitudes, but guess what protects them? Yep, you guessed it. The First Amendment.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[revery]

I think you and I have a significant disconnect when it comes to the meaning of the word responsibility.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Noehre]

I saw a production of 1776 performed in Faneuil Hall in Boston. My landlord was John Adams.

Good stuff it was. :)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[shark72]

"How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?"

Actually, that's a VERY good example to bring up when explaining how the first amendment works, by explaining how the first amendment does not protect you.

I'm sure that everybody reading this has encountered a situation wherein some goober on a web forum was banned or had their posts removed for violating the site's TOS or otherwise for simply being a jerk, and then screamed "[web site name] is violating my first amendment rights!"

The response to this is simple: the web site operator is not the government. And, neither is your principal. The web site owner can do anything he or she wants with their web site, and your principal can do anything he wants with the school newspaper that he oversees. Anybody who thinks that the first amendment will protect them from being banned by a web site or censored by one's high school principal lacks a fundamental understanding of the first amendment.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[starrsoft]

OTOH, If the students started their own newspaper and were responsible for publishing it, the principal could not censor it.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[Octagon Most]

"A woman is arrested on murder charges. After hours of police interrogation without Miranda warnings, she confesses. They then read her rights to her and then ask her to confess again. The Supreme Court rules that in such a case the confession was to be allowed in court despite the fact that the Miranda warnings were simply done essentailly after the fact and that it was then difficult to face the police pressure after that point."

You seem to be asserting that the police were in the wrong to extract an additional confession since they only read the suspect her rights after her initial inadmissible (pre-Miranda) confession. I disagree. Your statement that it occurred "[a]fter hours of police interrogation without Miranda warnings" makes the police look like bullies who should have their case thrown out. But think of the dangerous precedent. It's difficult to legislate a "reasonable" amount of time so we usually get laws that specify an occurrence as a demarcation point. That is, anything a suspect says to police before getting Mirandized is inadmissible as evidence. If we follow your logic that the police in the above case were only reading the woman her rights to get an admissible confession after she volunteered (or was coerced into) the first one, then what do you want to disallow? Anything already said pre-Miranda reading?

In that case, as a criminal your best defense would be to confess immediately before being read your rights. Think about it - if you immediately confess to the first officer that approaches you then your case is almost identical to the one you cite except for the "hours of police interrogation." But time frames are a gray area anyway. You could claim intimidation, or some other cumulative effect of multiple officers, a crime scene, etc. Should you then avoid prosecution simply because the officers had to read you your rights to get you to confess again?

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[beakburke]

You are correct the the US hasn't invited in UN weapons inspectors. But the US never agreed to do so either as a condition of a cease-fire agreement. So the comparison really isn't fair logically.

With regards to taking and holding Baghdad (which I agree would be impossible if the majority of Iraqis thought that the US had territorial/empire ambitions), it wasn't the military advisors that said that it couldn't be done in 1991 (Though they did warn that doing so would require more time, money, and cost more lives). The decision to leave Saddam in control stemmed more from our promises some of our coalition members (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc) than military necessity. It was hoped, at the time, that Iraqi's would take care of the dirty deed of diposing Saddam themselves after the 1991 Gulf War. Of course that didn't happen. Those who did rise up against him were crushed. (The mass graves you see now)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[AK Marc]

Hear, hear. I agree. Now if we could only get the government to keep Fox news from reporting what they want to and force them to report the correct information..... Oh wait, that's not the point you wanted to make is it?

Yeah, what's wrong with a little fraud. Say they present "Joe Politician thinks that Iraq is behind 9/11" and continually imply that 9/11 was done by Saddam, knowing full well that Iraq had absolutely no connection to 9/11. Would that be responsible? Should known lies be protected speech? Would the government not be able to go after them, but it would be legal for, say, Iraqis in America to sue them?

Where do you draw the line with Fox News's hate speech based on lies? How about Rush, or the other talk show guys?

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[serutan]

perhaps you should open your country up to weapons inspectors and get out of their way

Huh? They did. The U.N. was in the midst of the weapons inspections when Bush decided to invade before they could finish. Jeez, do you suppose he was afraid they wouldn't find anything?

The guy who was in charge of the inspections saying they were making progress and for everybody to just hold on and let them get their job done. Bush essentially ordered the U.N. to pull out the inspectors or they would get caught in the crossfire. When the U.N. refused to sanction an attack, even after hearing Powell recite phony evidence cribbed from obsolete early 90s intelligence, we attacked anyway as the "coalition of the willing." In the previous Iraq war at least Bush Sr. bothered to establish the pretense of a United Nations effort. Dubya's message to the world is Get the F*ck out of our way.

The parent post is an illustration of the point of the original article, that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it and forget the truth.

I call straw man

[Khashishi]

mod parent down

karma

[Khashishi]

See, the logged in person gets all the glory (modpoints) and the anonymous coward gets naught.

You are right.

[Barlo_Mung_42]

"Looks like the kids are not the only ones in need of education about the First Amendment?"

Our president for one.

States can't take away constitutional freedoms

[dougnaka]

It's illegal!

This reminds me of...

[Dr. Shim]

A poem...

I am the student
I am the learned deceived
The dreamer not permitted to achieve
I am the disciplined kept on a leash
The one biting my tongue not licensed to speak
I am the oppressed, tyrannized, the victimized wishing to be free
I wish behind gates where I've been penalized
My age is the crime for which I've been institutionalized
I am the pupil
The follower the listener
The prisoner, analyzed, corrected, improved, then approved
The taught with a thousand censored thoughts
I am the listless puppet whose limbs move wherever they aught
I am the child, the adolescent, the youth
The pet taught to be passive
If I do not heed I will face rebuke
I see the way I am supposed to see
And speak the way I am supposed to speak
I assume my position and am where I am required to be
I must be discrete not to displease
I'm the slave told I am free
I am the hypocrite that pledges to the hypothetical flag
The fool that faces this foolish rag
Driven mad by the fact that I'm promised life, liberty, and happiness.
-- Nathalie Lawhead

Oh, and this little piece.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[shark72]

"I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment."

The GP's statement is correct. Sorry, but it's your understanding that's off.

Others have probably explained it better than I have, but perhaps an example will help here. Say, for example, once you graduate from high school, you get a job at the Department of Health and Human Services. Your first task is to launch an employee newsletter. Your job is to write the copy, then show it to several people for approval. If one of those people asks that you not publish a particular story -- for any reason -- you don't have first amendment protection here, regardless of the fact that the person who killed the story is a government employee.

I can't quote case law to explain why it works this way, but for me it's one of those "common sense" sort of things.

Who's surprised?

[Devil]

It is in the U.S. government's interest (or any government's, really; this isn't just a U.S. problem) to keep people ignorant about what rights they really have. That way, when those rights are eroded, the people will be too ignorant to complain.

Look at Cory Doctorow's recent experience with American Airlines. He was asked by the airline to write down the addresses of the people with whom he was staying, but when he asked what law required this, he was simply told, "It's for your safety," and "It's a federal law," but no one could tell him what law. Since most people are ignorant of the extent of their rights, many people think taking photos of bridges or burning the flag is illegal, or that they have to tell their airline with whom they are staying on their vacations.

In President Bush's America, the government tells you what your rights are, regardless of what the Constitution and its Amendments say.

Separation of School and State

[Brandybuck]

This is what you get when you put the government in charge of our children's education. Did you really think the government would teach them what the government didn't want them to think?

Re:Separation of School and State

[Jason Ford]

Exactly. Now, who should be entrusted with the education of our children? It probably shouldn't be the corporations. You don't think the corporations would teach them what the corporations don't want them to think?

I'm very serious in saying that you are on to something here. I'm just not sure who should be teaching our children under the present conditions. Homeschooling for everyone?

Re:Separation of School and State

[Brandybuck]

Homeschooling for everyone?

The choices are more than just governments, corporations and homeschooling. There are also private schools and parochial schools. The vast majority of private schools are not public corporations (though most are incorporated for tax purposes). Most private schools are not terribly expensive. Parochial schools cheaper yet. In terms of real dollars, both are far cheaper than government schools. Although I am not in favor of most voucher plans I have seen, they are the way we should be thinking. The key though is that the choice is for the parents, not the politician.

There is another option which homeschoolers are (re-)discovering. And that is that they don't need to go it alone. Oftentimes homeschooling families will join together to distribute resources and the work. You don't need five parents to teach five children, so why not share the teaching? Mrs. Smith teaches on Monday, Mr. Jones on Tuesday, Mrs. Franks on Wednesday, etc.

Yes, it's a financial burden to have one parent quit work to stay at home to homeschool. But what if you only had to give up work one day a week to homeschool? Would you be interested then? Most parents would jump at that chance I think.

Re:Separation of School and State

[Jason Ford]

Hello, again! I agree that the key is that the parents, and not the politicians, should be responsible for making the decisions that affect them. When people are removed from the effects of their decisions, they tend to make less appropriate decisions for the affected.

I wonder if you might have a study or two that supports your assertion that private and parochial schools are cheaper than government schools. It is commonly assumed that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, but it is not a given.

I wonder, too, about the curricula of these private and parochial schools. I wonder what fundamentalist Christians would think of subsidizing the cost of Korans in Muslim private schools. Or, would we take the study of religion out of the schools and leave it to the synagogues, churches, mosques, temples, and parents?

You are right about sharing in the responsibility for homeschooling. If I had children, I would certainly jump at the chance. Can you imagine the panic in the government when the people realize that they can work together to solve problems without the government?

Re:Separation of School and State

[Brandybuck]

I wonder if you might have a study or two that supports your assertion that private and parochial schools are cheaper than government schools.

I don't have any on hand, but last I recall, was public education in my state costing $6000 per student per year why non-public education averages only $4000. Some private schools are of course way more expensive, but I usually discount those elite private schools where the State Secretary of Schools sends his kids from my analysis :-)

In my rural small hometown growing up there were/are two religious schools (one of which boasts the Rutan brothers as alumni) within town, and two more in the next town down the road. Of these four, three were for poorer congregations.

I wonder what fundamentalist Christians would think of subsidizing the cost of Korans in Muslim private schools.

This is the major reason I dislike most voucher plans I have seen. I would be much less opposed if the vouchers were paid directly to the parents instead of the schools. My personal preference is a straight tax credit.

In point of fact, most US kids are dumb as rocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just dirt f*cking stupid. And they don't care about it, either. If Slashdotters don't understand that they are far, far removed from the mainstream, maybe they need a reality check, too. Take a look around you. Next time you go to the grocery store, take a look at the kid ringing the register. Odds are he (or she) is a mouth breathing moron.

Typical.

Rotten from the inside

[Anonymous Coward]

Stating the fact that the American School system is a joke, is a joke within itself. Students get a 500 page textbook and goes thru 200 of them, year after year. A school can be compared to a police station, if it is rotten, you will never know. It's impossible to prove a teacher is incopetent, maybe he's just discouraged, which leads to the discouragement and ennui of the students, then the grades "prove" they are being taught since bad perfomance connotates too much context. Being the brightest in American schools is counter productive, the more you stray, the more you're put down by the teachers themselves. You're graded on notes, on homework, on spelling bees, on neatness, I wouldn't be suprise if someone added they were graded on comportament. The computer are a mere distraction, on the other hand, the only place you can put your mind at work, finding ingenious ways to circunvent the http proxy. Calculator only atrophies the brain, to point where the student can't even take advantage of the handy scientific calculator. Of course this isn't an isolated case, although in US the decay is all too evident.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see too many pieces of heavy and dangerous machinery in the average office.

A lot of schools are introducing metal detectors, though... guns & knives + people too stupid to know when not to use them = pain.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[JNighthawk]

My last year of high-school I had to test of computers class (because for whatever idiotic reason, scoring perfect on the AP Comp Sci exam isn't enough in itself to test out of "Advanced Computer Applications", the official name of our basic computer class) and there was one question on it where we had to write an essay on the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharers. I wrote how it is disgusting and nearly or wholly unconstitutional that the RIAA is strong-arming everyone into settling instead of fighting against the tactics, not necessarily the charge.

The teacher said no one else had done an essay like that and most had said they're afraid of the RIAA suing them. She agreed with what I said, but she was young (~25). Good looking too, if I wasn't in school I prolly would have asked her out :-)

Athena

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to high school in canada not many years ago when our high school was a test school for a new national program spearheaded by a company called "Athena". This company would install a TV / VCR into every class/meeting room in the school, pay for and maintain a computer lab in our school.

In return every at 9:00 every morning all students would watch 12.5 minute "News" brief complete with 2.5 minutes of target advertising (Imaging what you could charge advertisers if you could tell them every single child in canada aged 15-19 will see your ad!)

My group of friends were very opposed to the idea of a private company being able to control the news that all students see you can only imagine the way they could have shapped the next generation. So SACC (Students against corporate classroms) was formed (briefly)

Our friends put up posters in the school, organised over 1000 signatures of students, parents and teachers (one who got in trouble), but after we organised rallies during lunch hours to protest and after being interviewed during one of those rallies on national TV we were threatened to stop, even after we moved all of our activities off of school property.

I ended up leaving that school after the second time we were warned about our disruptive behavior. The Youth News Network began broadcasting briefly, but with no ads being broadcast (the program was now in the publics eye) Last I heard the company ran out of money, the school got to keep the computers and tv's and the project died before it could brainwash an entire generation (Any more than it already is)

Some of the above story may be a little off as it was 1998/1999 and I was a high school student. The link below is to YNN (Athena)'s website.

A letter from the manitoba teachers society
http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/CAMEO/ynn/26. html

The YNN (Athena) website
http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/CAMEO/YNN/ind ex.html

While looking book at that time I believe we did make a difference, although probably a smaller one than we thought at the time.

North or south of the boreder keeping the private sector out of our schools is a must, now if we can juist find a way to keep the government and religion out of the classroom as well.

Re:Athena

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

That's a great story--I hope someone mods it up; if I had points right now, I would. Good job--it's heartening to see that some students stood up to that.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Money for Nothin']

a) Public schools are generally run by local governments, which are under state control. The First Amendment to the federal constitution does not apply to state governments.

Wrong. Federal laws supercede state laws, and state laws in turn supercede local/municipal laws.

Constitutional laws -- such as the 1st Amendment -- supercede Federal law. We are, after all, a "Constitutional Republic."

Hence, the 1st Amendment applies to all levels of government, from the Federal level on down.

This is basic Civics/Government stuff...

b) Even if it did, the guarentee of freedom of speech does not mean that the government has to sponsor that speech.

Correct.

Indeed, any sponsorship of the government necessarily means that taxpayer money is used to promote the speech, and although such sponsorship happens regularly enough (such as in California, where a the state pension plan agency was working to oppose President Bush's attempts to partially privatize Social Security, or the recent scandal surrounding the promoter of the "No Child Left Behind Act", or various works put out by the ONDCP), it's almost invariably condemned as a waste of taxpayer money and a sign of overbearing government abuse of power (as if governments abusing their power were uncommon).

c) Even if it did, minors do not have the full range of legal rights, just as they don't have the full range of legal responsibility.

Incorrect. 2 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment rights of minors, saying in the majority opinion "minors enjoy the protection of the First Amendment"

B*llsh*t

[Anonymous Coward]

"Significantly reduced funding with respect to inflation, leading to mediocrity in staffing and inadequate facilities."

If more spending == better education, than I invite you to draw a graph that shows a correlation between spending with results in education.

There is no such graph. In fact, you might show a rough inverse correlation between money spent and results.

If it were that simple that if we spend more, we get more results, we'd have the brainiest kids on the planet, when in fact, we show results that are less than mediocre.

Perhaps we piss away money on computers, and sports, and not enough on base education? Perhaps its pretty well known amongst anyone who has attended a university in the U.S. that education attracts the least intelligent people. Perhaps its the 3 months off in the summer that attracts slackers.

All I know is that we get less than what we pay for now. I'm not in favor of spending more in that rat hole.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Archvillain]

Judging from the homeschoolers I've met and love, it's a f*cking evil thing to do to children.

1. Crippling of social development. It is an understatement to say that the regular social activities of homsechooling just don't cut it. Like it or not, a socially crippled person is just as screwed in society as an educationally crippled one, if not moreso. Being social creatures, this stuff also screws with happiness and feelings of self-worth.

2. Nutcases. Many, if not most homeschoolers are homeschooled because by brainwashing religious nutcase parents. This means that most homeschool-support programs and activities in your area will make a mockery of your worries that your kids might be among sheeple at school.

3. Networking. Lifelong friends are made during school years. Homeschoolers I know have a vastly smaller pool of friends and acquaintances than schoolkids, and those friends are often of a lesser quality - selected by necessity simply for being of similar age, rather than for good character or complementary personality. Schoolkids get to select their friends from a pool of hundreds or thousands they can spend time with with nearly every day. With big enough social circles, friends beget friends and are gateways to yet more social circles. Having too few on the other hand can result in dwindling circles, as people leave/move faster than the rate of crossover into new circles. Obviously, this will depend on how social and outgoing a person is.

4. Inevitablity. Assuming you want the kids to go to university, they're going to have to sit highschool exams (or whatever the institution requires), so they have the learn the public school curriculam anyway.

5. Life. To do a serious job of educating your kids, you will have to sacrifice years that you could be working, or developing yourself as a person, or doing all those things that you're still young enough to be able to do. That's a very real, and very high price, for a gamble - there is no guarentee that your efforts will result in better adjusted kids, but you will absolutely lose a huge chunk of your life. (You're presumably not so naive as to think spending most of each day with your kids is going to be nothing but bonding moments :-)

I don't know what the solution is, but the results of homeschooling that I see make the flaws of average public schools seem the lesser evil by far. My personal (and inexperienced) thoughts would be some kind of dual-education - putting kids in a good mixed-gender school, and teaching them you own curriculum for an hour a day (perhaps at expense of route-work non-educational homework rather than cutting into their own time). It's a difficult problem. The only real solution seems to be to move to another country and put the kids in school there, but then you can't move back without inflicting #3...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It does not mean you constitutional rights at school or work. Freedom of speech means you can get fired at work for example.

You can't be expelled for what you say, as a counter example. One obvious exception would be threats of violence.

But can the government lock your son or daughter without trail? Absolutely. If he/she is defined as a terrorist than due processes no longer applies.

That's crap. The bill of rights apply to everybody on US soil, terrorists included.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[kannibal_klown]

but this being a state school, the campus security are real cops.

State. Our area was it's in precinct, so they were real cops (guns and all). They loved to keep reminding us this.

However, they were in cahoots with the RA's. The "fire alarm" was on the whole time; the premise being that if the fire alarm's one we're all supposed to be out of there. And, of course, the cops and firemen were more than willing to enforce it because they were sick of doing this every night as well. They wanted the jerks as well.

The other buildings (ie, student center) were closed for the evening except for the other dorms. However, they told the front desk not to let anyone unless their badge said they belonged there (we had different stickers for each dorm).

So, it was a sucky night. And, of course by the time I got back in I was so wide awake from freezing my juevos off that I stayed up the rest of the night.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[justins]

Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Which is sort of tragically funny given the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill _o f_Rights)

Since that's wikipedia you can go through and change the law articles to read however your stupid ass thinks they should read. Have at it!

This is a REAL problem

[salesgeek]

Kids really don't come out of school with a real understanding of their rights. Here are a couple of reasons why:

* Government interventions: the govt intervenes in situations that were formerly handled by teachers and principals. 10 years ago a kid would not get locked up by the police for drawing a picture of someone getting stabbed. Cops would not show up in uniform for in school detention.

* Students don't loose their rights, they never have them. Back in the day, no one inspected your locker, processed your for saying something, asked you to pee in a bottle, metal detectored you or profiled you for deviant behavior unless you gave them a real reason. And then rights were lost until you earned them back.

* School rules are often litanies of "no student may" and "is not permitted on school properties".

* Zero Tollerance policies have eliminated discression in enforcing rules. The result: student rights are trampled by an almost boolean intrepetation of rules. This happened to my neice: she had genuine flat tire within 1/4 mile of the school on the way in. No one could stop to help her because they would automatically loose a letter grade under the zero tollerence for tardiness policy - so she had to wait by the side of the highway for help. When the tire was fixed, and she got to school, she recieved after school detention and lost a letter grade and worse yet, a further tardy would result in an F for the entire semester.

It would be very cool and useful if there was a voluntary "student's bill of rights" type of program that would help students learn what constitutional freedoms are, but also gave the school a framework for dealing with the irresponsible use or infringing on another student's rights that didn't require court involvement.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[redhog]

What was the last one, or where could I read it? Excuse my lack of knowledge, but I'm not american, I 'm just a swede who would like to know more about your culture and laws and compare them with ours (I think its interresting that you do not really have any rights, just that your government does neither except some very specific. In sweden, the government have all the rights, except the ones (quite some :) that are excplicitly given to you, but those are then also your rights, and can not be stepped on by anyone, government or not. In practice, I don't think the differences are that big, it's just a difference of legal tradition)

Overseeing Schools (was:Accuracy)

[SteveSgt]

When I was in primary school in Iowa in the 1960's, the school encouraged parents to volunteer to assist the teachers on a regular basis. We often had somebody's parent in the room with us in my grade school.

I would complain to the school board if I wasn't able to oversee my child's classes in some pre-arranged manner. OTOH, I found that keeping tabs on the textbook and assignments told me enough about what was going on most of the time, and allowed me to make comments to the teacher (or principal) when necessary.

Foreign? I have a question

[tacokill]

I've never thought that humor "translated" well from culture to culture and language to language so I wonder in all seriousness, does Slashdot help you to get a better grasp on American (and Canadian) humor?

(note, if you've spoken English your whole life, it may not be as relevant but what do others think?)

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[VultureMN]

"Saddam was however, campaigning to unify rogue terrorist organizations against the USA. "

Got any verifiable, unbiased sources for this ? Quite frankly, you sound just like one of Bush's cronies on the runup to the war in Iraq, and they were all proven wrong.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[benna]

A) bullshit on multiple counts. For one things, most state consitutions have similar provisions, and for another, the first amendment does apply to state and local governments.

B) If the government is going to sponser a school newspaper it cannot choose to fund some articles and not others. This is analogous to NEA precident.

C) I think this is bullshit as far as the consitution is concerned, especially since the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment does not say equal protection except for minors. However, the supreme court has made certain pragmatic dicisions that I think are inconsistent with the constitution when deciding what powers school administrators should be allowed. They made a similar error in TLO V. New Jersey, in which they significantly lowered the burden required by school admiistrators to conduct searches of students and their property (while acknowledging that school administrators are agents of the state no less). So from a current legal perspective, you are corrent that ths supreme court has sided with the schools on this one, but it is still unconstitutional.

Unclarity?

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, the fact that this particular news on /. received so many different opinions on what the 1st amendment means and what "freedom (of expression)" is, would point out that there IS unclarity about it.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[Anonymous Coward]

Some time ago, the Supreme Court had held, in Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991), that police officers were permitted to go an a bus as it was waiting to leave the bus station, and approach passengers at random to ask questions and request their consent to engage in a search of either their luggage or their persons. The limitation that was placed on obtaining such consent was that no compulsion could be involved. Thus, the Bostick Court said it would approve of the investigative routine provided a reasonable passenger would feel free to decline the request and refuse to cooperate. In approving the police tactic, the Court was favorably impressed by the fact that even though the officer was armed, he had not unholstered his gun or acted in a threatening way. Also, the officer had actually told Bostick that he could refuse consent to a search.

Why would anyone carrying drugs agree to be searched if they thought it could refuse? In this case, the guy saw his buddy agree and get busted, then he agrees to the search as well. I can't believe he knew he could say "No." As was said before, you have to know your rights or they are taken from you.

Teaching Mythology (was:Accuracy)

[SteveSgt]

This poster reinforced my statement more eloquently that I can in the time given: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137903&cid=115 33930

Obligations: State or Individual?

[M_Cheevy]

Oracle, it seems most of your arguments here are spurious in light of Article 22

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

These obligations are upon the State not the individual. This does not mean that the individual is exempt from prosecution, but it does mean they can only be prosecuted for interfering with these rights or hampering someone's access to exercising these rights. In short, you can't be prosecuted for "failing to provide". So don't worry, your accumulated pile of bucks is safe from the non-existant Reagan-era "lazy welfare recipient" (Fiction? Yes, a quick look at the paltry sum a person can get under American welfare shows you it is WAY below what is required to live on).

Re:Obligations: State or Individual?

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Ahh ok,
Thank you for pointing that out. Money from a government still comes from somewhere (but this is way less of an issue than I was making it), but I had totally missed this part (my bad). Thanks again!

how about the others?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that our politicians and MSM have trouble with some of the rest of the amendments that make up our Bill of Rights as well

How about the second amendment for example? The retarded younger brother of the first amendment doesn't sell copy, so the newspapers just let him go....

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[AK Marc]

You started the analysis. I just pointed out that the Declaration of Independence preceeded the war,indicating that, even when going for a joke, the gun nuts can't get anything right. If you want a laugh, ask them about "well regulated."

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[cpt kangarooski]

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Note that the current population of the United States is a little less than 300 million, so we might end up with about 6000 representatives. That's probably too big to be practical.

I think its interresting that you do not really have any rights, just that your government does neither except some very specific.

That is incorrect. Persons and citizens within the US have many rights. Some of these rights are natural rights, which all people have just because they are people, e.g. the right of free speech. Other rights are positive rights, granted by the government, e.g. copyright, which doesn't exist unless the government creates a copyright system to begin with.

Some of the more important of these rights, e.g. free speech, due process, etc. are specifically guaranteed by the government. However, merely because they are guaranteed does not mean that the others do not exist. However, they may be less secure from government interference.

An important principle is that rights must ultimately be present in, and stem from the people, as our government is something we have brought into existence, and which we can reduce or replace as we see fit.

Oh, my.

[Tony]

Darwinism is a theory.

The theory of gravity is only a theory. Should we distrust it?

Science is meant to be objective is it not?

Science is an epistomology, a method of learning the workings of the natural world. This method is marked by the gathering of information, the formulation of an hypothesis, the phrasing of that hypothesis such that the hypothesis may be disproved , the devising of an experiment to test the antithesis, followed by either more testing or the formulation of a new hypothesis.

Should we look at all relevant theories on a subject or should we just scoff at those that don't fit our agenda?

If by "don't fit our agenda" you mean, "don't follow the scientific method," then yes, we should scoff at them.

Intelligent design is another theory.

No. Intelligent design is a deopolitical agenda. As it is not disprovable, it is not scientific, and cannot claim the title of scientific theory.

This is the part of the whole equation that irks those of us who have studied the philosophy of science, even in the littlest bit. The ID crowd has proposed a solution to a problem that may or may not exist. Its as if we observed the revolution of the planets about the sun before formulating the concept of gravity, and we decided that the planets must be attached to big fuck-off strings, and the sun is spinning them around like bolos.

"After all," we might claim, "that is the only possible explanation! There is nothing left in nature to explain it."

The critics bash it because it takes into account that there might be a God and that things have happened due to design and not just accident.

There are many things wrong with this statement. I will cover two.

First, we bash it not because it takes into account that there might be a God, but that it requires God. You must first presuppose the existence of God before ID works, just like you must presuppose the existence of big fuck-off strings for the Bolo Theory of planetary movement.

The biggest problem with ID is that there is no way to disprove the existence of God. There is no test we could devise that would prove that God isn't there, playing dice with the Universe as the stake. With the Bolo Theory, we could concievably leave the atmosphere and travel around the moon and see that there was no big fuck-off string attaching the moon to the earth.

The second problem with your statement is simple. Science does not claim that our being here is just an accident. Just like the formation of a beautiful crystal or a stunning sunset is no accident, the evolution of life on earth follows distinct principles of physics. The expression of those principles is complex, and we simplify that into the study of biology and chemistry, but the outcome is no accident.

It just isn't designed, either. There is no "guiding force," or intelligence behind it. Things happen because the laws of the universe provide the means.

You have to believe, when you get down to it, that something comes from nothing - a contradiction to the known laws of physics.

You don't know much about the laws of physics, do you? Current theory includes the notion of particles popping into and falling out of existence. Just like background noise, there is no net gain of matter or energy, and so the balance is maintained: imagine a particle and anti-particle pair coming into existence, interacting, and recombining to form nothing.

This is a little simplistic. For a better, more accurate description, look up the Casimir Effect on Google.

This gets more at the heart of secularism, which IMO is an extremely repressive religion in and of itself.

Nice ad-hominem / strawman combination! Very elegantly done.

Just a quick note: the absence of something is not something. The absence of religious belief is not religious belief. Just so we're clear on that litt

based on the test results

[Anonymous Coward]

they're not even doing that.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[GigsVT]

What the hell are you talking about? I don't remember stating views on firing teachers, or standardized testing, or half the other shit you attribute to me.

I'm a Libertarian, against all public school, personally.

Yeah, sure, why not?

[istewart]

I don't see anything wrong with it. M4s for everybody! (Or Kalishnikovs, since they are much more common and debatably more reliable.)

If you wish to take the subject to ridiculous extremes, then I will say that I believe not even the government should be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction, and that the people would be well within their rights to use force to remove the capability to destroy civilization.

High Protein

[tacokill]

High protein lifestyles (and it is a lifestyle), one flavor of which is the Atkins diet, do work. Of course, it usually only works for "active" people. So the old, tired adage that exercise is required is true.

Nonetheless, I noticed that my weight loss and "get in shape" achievements were much stronger because, in part, of my focus to eat a high protein diet. And I found it really easy because I dig on meat. In fact, I still focus on high protein now - 4 years later and haven't found it to be a pain in the ass like other people. It's pretty simple, really.

I'm not saying it will work for everyone, but count me in too. It worked for me.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[JesusCigarettes]

I just want to point out that we don't actually have rights now either. I can't buy alcohol until I'm twenty-one either because of federally-pushed state laws that arbitrarily prohibit the sale of alcohol to adults under the age of twenty-one.

One important factor is the age of the high school students surveyed. High schoolers generally don't take government courses until senior year, where they do a cursory and meaningless overview of the American system of government that more or less completely fails at teaching anyone anything about rights; but before senior year, most kids don't even necessarily know anything at all useful about the American government.

It's important to realize that part of the problem is that these kids' parents aren't bothering to actually teach their children about how government works and that they have rights, because more often it's more important that they perform well in the bullshit football/soccer/basketball game so they can have a small chance of getting a scholarship to a third-tier school based on sports ability and go pro someday. Or go bitter, and become a coach at some school to perpetuate the system. I guess.

On the pledge:

[beakburke]

OK, let's break down the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and too the republic for which it stands. One nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

You aren't really pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth, you are pledging to uphold the ideas that the Flag represents. (Which, btw, is why so many people get upset about flag buring. They don't see flag burning as a way of protesting the policy(ies) of the US govmnt. To them buring the flag is means something deeper. It means essentially renouncing your citizenship and your belief in the ideas and ideals of the US itself. Really, it's treason AND blatant hypocracy to them, since you are effecively renouncing your citizenship, but doing it without actually having to give up the privilidges it provides. Trying to have the cake and eat it too....etc.) You are professing certain common ideals about what it means to be american. Because if you prefer tyranny to liberty, and oppression to justice, you really can't be "american" (sorry but USian just sounds SO bad). Of course there is room for debate about what some of these ideas mean in the concrete rather than the abstract. But the rejection of the most basic ideals (at least to me) indicates that you ought to renounce your citizenship. Put another way, what these ideas mean in a practical sense, their implementation in a logistical sense, and their exercise in the political realm are open to debate. But in order to have that debate, we at least need to agree on the most basic framework within which all this can take place (a constitutional democratic republic). We at least need some starting premises or beliefs on which everyone can agree.

With regard to the "under god" part. To me personally, it is an acknowledgement that the premises upon which the US was founded sprang from a religious belief that we are "endowded by our creator with certain unalienable rights". Now you don't have to necessarily believe in God (either in the Judeo-Christian sense, or in any sense at all) to believe in the idea of natural rights, but that is where the idea of natural rights originated from in the US tradition. Thus, IMHO, when you say "one nation under god" you aren't necessarily professing a personal belief in god, you are professing that you agree in principle with the ideas that our rights are not granted by man or the government, but our natural moral entitlement. Or, as someone else said much more eloquently, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed".

Yeah, it's about much more than a scrap of cloth.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[randallpowell]

The role of public schools isn't to produce free thinkers and speakers. It is to get the masses to submit to the government.

You're forgetting that they have to submit to captialists who need uneducated folks to agree with them that sending jobs overseas will make them more money then lay them off. Captialism works best with an uneducated population.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[GigsVT]

I see the Slashdot population is equally ill informed about their rights. A school principal or administrator is indeed considered an agent of the government for these purposes.

Public schools are government institutions, funded by the people. They must act accordingly and obey the constitution.

Not Flamebait - Mod Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to mods: the above statement is largely accurate. Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvadore - read up on what happened in those countries in the 70s and 80s.
Such criticism is legit, nowhere does parent say 'America is teh Devil'. The fact is we intervened in South and Central America in order to stop socialists/communists from coming to power by democratic means. Whether or not that this was a good thing is debatable, but either way it_happened.

Re:Not Flamebait - Mod Up!

[rinks]

Accurate, but still largely ignored. Check out Fox News "Asman Observer" on what "lessons" we can apply to Iraq that we learned in El Salvador. Chilling stuff. Also, for more background on what training went into all this, google "School of the Americas" and read about THAT place.

Re:Not Flamebait - Mod Up!

[Brian_Confucius]

Wasn't America eager to intervene in Vietnam because the North and South were going to reunite in a free election, and the Communist North was predicted to win said free election?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't, mainly because all too many people don't like Christian parents teaching thier own children.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[redhog]

Are those "natural rights" written down somewhere, or are they just taken for granted? If they are not written down and guaranteed by the government, how can they then be guaranteed to anyone, lest he defend it with force?

I think my problem with understunding this is that you can not give or not give something you don't have. The people does not have much power over the government except from what the government grants the people, as the government has _virtual_ armed force monopoly. Of course, in my country all rights given to the people has bee fought for one by one, won by general strikes, elections, good political maneuvers etc, not by a revolution all at once.

Civics need to be taught

[Recovering Anonymous]

I said it before, maybe if they actually taught civics in school kids might know these answers. I also noticed that made no metion of freedom of relegion, I guess that one doesn't count anymore.

TFA's authors don't get the 1st Amendment, either

[Len Budney]

From TFA:

Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.

That's all true as far as current law goes, but it's a gross misunderstanding to suggest that the first amendment is about protecting pr0n. The framers made, and enforced, laws against obscenity and indecency. It's only recently that 1st amendment case law started to focus on protecting deviancy.

The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect political dissent and religious freedom. The protection was made broader than "political" speech only to prevent politicians from enacting censorship under the guise of decency laws.

Ironically, political dissent is condemned by left- and right-wingers, as either "fascist" or "unpatriotic", and public expression of religious views brings down a torrent of ridicule. The only "first amendment rights" people get passionate about are exactly the ones that weren't even intended by the framers: frivolous and indecent expression that serves no decent purpose at all.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[slashdot_commentator]

Apologies. It wasn't my intention to portray you as supporting something you didn't. Whining about administrators enforcing censorship struck me as someone who would support the other crap.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[jephthah]

You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for.

you're totally missing the point.

for one thing the principal does not control funding, the elected members of the school board, as agents of the electoral public ( ~= taxpayers), do. the principal is acting on his/her (possibly arbitrary) judgment as an autocrat.

but besides that minor detail, the issue is that high school kids don't understand First Amendment rights, and it's because their schools either all but ignore them, or (in this and other situations) actively suppress them.

yeah, youre gonna say, "minors in high school don't have constitutional rights, its not a democracy" and blah blah blah.

while that may be true to some extent, it's not entirely so, and comes back to the real issue: kids in high school are not taught to critically examine, research and argue issues, but merely to "sit down, shut up, memorize this, parrot that, walk the line, and be on time."

with that kind of enviroment and anti-intellectual mentality of the faculty and administration, why should we expect any of our high school kids to understand what the First Amendment guarantees.

Hell, we're lucky that *half* of them got it.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[shark72]

"I see the Slashdot population is equally ill informed about their rights. A school principal or administrator is indeed considered an agent of the government for these purposes. Public schools are government institutions, funded by the people. They must act accordingly and obey the constitution."

You're correct in a general sense that we must all obey the constitution, but you got lost on "for these purposes." This is a specific case where you don't have first amendment protection.

To repeat an example I used in another post, if you're an employee of a government agency and your job is to produce the employee newsletter, if one of your higher-ups edits or kills a story, you don't have first amendment protection simply because that person happens to be an employee of a government agency. The government has oversight over its own output -- it has to.

I'm aware that this is a fine line and a difference that may be difficult to grasp, and I certainly haven't made any friends with high school students by pointing this out, but this is how it works. Sorry.

Other people have probably explained it better than me. Keep reading.

the right to worship the Christian God in any way

[commodoresloat]

Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment.

Will you allow the same children to read a Muslim prayer at graduation? How about a pagan one? A satanic prayer? If you answer "no" to any of these questions, you must answer "no" to all. To do otherwise would be to "respect an establishment of religion."

The point about Congress vs. the states is simply ignorance. The Supreme Court established back in 1925 that the Bill of Rights binds state legislatures too. And beside the point, most states have virtually the same wording in their own state constitutions, making the point moot.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[GigsVT]

There are specific supreme court cases on this very thing, which makes it different from your government newsletter scenario.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[jephthah]

The US doesn't have much structure for "continuing education."

i disagree. its called 'self-study'. try your local library.

Better yet, go to your nearest 4-year university, and inquire about a "Friends of the Library" or similar program whereby you can gain borrowing priveledges.

realizing that you dont know as much as you once thought you did is a good thing, but now you gotta go do something about it.

or... i suppose you could just go to sunday school and church every week, and call it even. thats what my folks do, and they seem happy :/

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[DJCF]

I would argue that in order to be a good citizen, it is nessesary to vote for the party you believe will fulfull your needs the most. Always challenging the existing system in hopes of a better one, I believe is also an integral part of citizenship. As a previous poster said, the First Ammendment (and the others) are not universal rights, but principles which must be fought for at every opportunity.

Re:In point of fact, most US kids are dumb as rock

[queef_latina]

mouth breathing moron

I'll bet that 9/10 of those kids would know where to put a hyphen in that phrase.

Re: stupid mods

[Blondie-Wan]

It's already been said, but I'll say it again: this isn't flamebait. Acknowledge it or not, the US has done sleazy things throughout Latin America whenever the government takes a turn to the left, regardless of said government's legitimacy.

Moreover, mentioning the sordid affair in Nicaragua isn't flamebait; even if you happen to disagree with the BorgCopyeditor's POV, it's a real expression of a valid point whose merits one can argue, not some totally ungrounded attack on America. Modding that as "Flamebait" is uncalled-for.

Maytbe those kids are not so naive

[ChrisPee]

Actually, it sounds like those high school kids are far more savvy then your average Slashdot editor. They know that policemen, judges, legislators etc will apply what they infer to be the spirit of the law. In real life (compare: video game) you cannot expect success via a clever technicality.

[See "shouting fire in a crowded theater".]

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[DJCF]

American's really need an extended period under a really repressive dictator so they stop taking it for granted

Unfotunately, The Powers That Be have had the last 30 years (rougly since Vietnam) to perfect the science of manipulating public opinion. 50 years from now there could easily a dictater in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and the People, too high on MTV and Cable, would gladly report to thhe FBI anyone un-American enough to be a democrat-sympathiser.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[einhverfr]

She was arrested before the confession, IIRC, then read her rights and asked to confess again as far as I could tell from reading the opinions of the justices. IANAL though.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[Anonymous Coward]

Over analysing? Since when is showing that such a bumper sticker is akin to wearing a badge of absolute ignorance 'over analysing'?

It shows absolute ignorance about how this country came into existance.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[martinX]

I'd like to see a video of that.

The kids are mostly alright

[Matt Douglass]

I'm a high school junior myself, and was prompted to investigate the actual research behind these findings because I was pretty sure they were bullshit. For the most part, they are.

An unsurprisingly brief examination of the methodology and response percentages of the survey itself (readily available in PDF format online at http://firstamendment.jideas.org/downloads/future_ final.pdf) reveal a truth jarringly absent from both the CNN article and the survey's own final conclusion: students are actually considerably more defensive of First Amendment rights than their own teachers, principals, and American adults in general (statistics on responses of American adults were taken from an independently run annual survey conducted by the organization Freedom Forum.) While teachers, principals and adults rather seriously outstrip students in their supposed approval of the right of a free press and the right to express unpopular opinions, they prove themselves dramatically less capable than their students and children in understanding what those rights mean.

For reference, turn to page six of the complete survey. Observe that 99% of all high school principals agree that "people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions," compared to only 83% of high school students. Yet only 43% of these exact same high school principals believe that "musicians should be allowed to sing songs with lyrics others may find offensive," compared to 70% of all high school students. The urge to use bold font or italics here is almost overwhelming. Despite their near unanimous patriotic exhortations of First Amendment rights, the interviewed principals apparently feel this right does not extend to those damned rappers. 58% of teachers and 59% of adults agree with this same statement; both percentages are dramatically lower than that of student respondents.

A good, solid eighty percent of high school principals believe that newspapers should be allowed to publish articles without government review; except in cases where that government is themselves. In that case, just 25% of high school principals agree that student newspapers should operate without the "approval of school authorities." The same pattern is found among adult and teacher respondents -- overwhelming majorities approve a free press, except when that free press consists of students whose opinions might run contrary to their own. The vested interest of schools in maintaining a degree of control over student publications has already been established by other posters, but the hypocrisy is nevertheless remarkable.

The most telling part of the survey is that only 51% of students agree that newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories, it is that 58% of those same students believe that high school newspapers should be permitted to discuss controversial issues without the approval of the school's administration. This statistic is central to the discussion at hand. Students may not be so well trained as their parents and school faculty to recognize statements they are supposed to agree with, but they are strongly defensive of First Amendment rights when they are confronted with the practical application of them -- much moreso than grown adults. There is still a need for greater discussion and understanding of the Bill of Rights in public schools, and perhaps a need to widely revive American Civics courses -- my own public school does not offer any. 58% is still an uncomfortably small majority in favor of the free press. The hysteria of the CNN article and much of this discussion, however, is unwarranted. The need for more widespread education and appreciation of the American civil liberties is not limited to teenagers. In fact, they apparently already have a better grasp on their meaning than most adults.

Re:The kids are mostly alright

[rpillala]

The case of a school newspaper is different from that of a newspaper in the real world. I sponsor the literary magazine at my school. We get submissions with a variety of controversial things in them, and it's kind of up to us to decide what's too risque or offensive to go in the magazine. I think that if a school wanted to publish a really raunchy magazine or didn't mind having lots of profanity in there, then godspeed. I'd buy it. But we don't do that because of where we are. The censorship (which it isn't even) isn't really coming from us, it's from the community we live in.

Ask those same school principals from the survey if they think students should be able to publish a newspaper on their own (outside of school) containing anything they want. The issue isn't that they think students don't have those rights. The issue is that they don't want something from a newspaper they choose not to control to come back and bite them.

Re:TFA's authors don't get the 1st Amendment, eith

[dvdeug]

public expression of religious views brings down a torrent of ridicule.

Which is why George W. Bush is in office and Jesse Jackson is an important political figure. Which is why every president since Lincoln has been a church-going Christian.

The only "first amendment rights" people get passionate about are exactly the ones that weren't even intended by the framers: frivolous and indecent expression that serves no decent purpose at all.

First place, that's not even close to true; many of the recent arguments have been over school prayer and 2-ton blocks of granite with the Ten Commandments carved on them. (Okay, so they were frivolous and indecent, but I don't think that's the way you were using the words.)

Secondly, what is a decent and nonfrivolous purpose is a political question. George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" is certainly a political rant, as is "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut". Any sitcom with two gay people in it can be viewed as indecent and frivolous; or it can be viewed as an active political attempt to push for acceptance for gay people.

Re:a red-hot WHAT??

[Brian Boitano]

but they'd rather plunge a red-hot porcupine up their asses

A red hot porcupine... now there's something you don't ever see, ever.

Success...

[TapeCutter]

"None of those kids will succeed." - This sums up the arogance of your post. Teachers used to tell me the same thing 35yrs ago. I never paid any attention to thier idea of success and was thrown out of high school. Having dragged 2 kids through the education system I found that many teachers still care more about asserting thier authority than anything else.

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

He is correct, "we will bury you" was a poor translation of a Russian idiom.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[gobbo]

1. Crippling of social development. It is an understatement to say that the regular social activities of homsechooling just don't cut it.

Neither do the regular social activities in a public school. I don't intend to be "regular" about it.

2. Nutcases. Many, if not most homeschoolers are homeschooled because by brainwashing religious nutcase parents.

You didn't really read my post, did you?

3. Networking. Lifelong friends are made during school years. Homeschoolers I know have a vastly smaller pool of friends and acquaintances than schoolkids, and those friends are often of a lesser quality - selected by necessity simply for being of similar age, rather than for good character or complementary personality.

My kids' best and truest friends are not from school, they're affiliated through other learning activities, the "extracurricular" stuff. Friends can come from anywhere, but it is my observation that true conviviality often arises from working on common projects. Often the friendships that arise in schools have more to do with the social ordering of the system, such as finding yourself in a particular clique through peer pressure, seating arrangements, locker assignments, detentions, etc. Worse, it is religiously and nearly universally self-organized into brutal hierarchies of peers. I believe this is a natural outcome of a socially stressed environment, and similar to prisons. Google "herbert dosadi" for a novelistic exploration of this. The social conditioning in a Taylorized school is one of the main reasons to homeschool (cf. prev. post - J.T. Gatto).

The world is full of opportunities to socialize, it's what happens during public collaboration--an important part of any education. I think you may've befriended nutbar/recluse homeschoolers.

4. Inevitablity. Assuming you want the kids to go to university, they're going to have to sit highschool exams (or whatever the institution requires), so they have the learn the public school curriculam anyway.

I think they'll manage the curriculum pretty easily as an ongoing side project. I'm pretty confident because I know my kids, and have worked in education for quite a while, like my spouse.

5. Life. To do a serious job of educating your kids, you will have to sacrifice years that you could be working,

WTF? Like teaching your own kids is a freakin' sacrifice to someone who wants to?

or developing yourself as a person,

OK, now I know you're not an educator. If you were, you'd know that education is a two-way process, and a good educator is always 'developing'--you are merely the most advanced student in the room.

or doing all those things that you're still young enough to be able to do.

Maybe I was wise and had a wild and bountiful youth, then settled down to career/kids/mortgage with few regrets. Just maybe. Thanks for the advice, though.

That's a very real, and very high price, for a gamble - there is no guarentee that your efforts will result in better adjusted kids, but you will absolutely lose a huge chunk of your life.

Like, duuuuh, if you don't want to teach your kids, get someone else to do it. :-/

(You're presumably not so naive as to think spending most of each day with your kids is going to be nothing but bonding moments :-)

You're right, I am not naive, but thanks for presuming. I have some useful experience with community-building, and I know a few excellent examples of 'healthy' families. I think we'll get on with these particular kids just fine.

We have accomplished and sensible friends with a wide range of skills, who like children. Who told you that homeschooling involved spending all your time with the kids, anyway? Maybe people who think they can teach their kids on their own.

Sounds like 'the homeschooling that you see' isn't working. Are they doing it on principles of faith, perhaps? Maybe they're good parents but not really into 'pedagogy?' Just a guess.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[einhverfr]

For the record, the description I gave of the case was largely paraphrased from the Majority Opinion.

But think of the dangerous precedent. It's difficult to legislate a "reasonable" amount of time so we usually get laws that specify an occurrence as a demarcation point. That is, anything a suspect says to police before getting Mirandized is inadmissible as evidence. If we follow your logic that the police in the above case were only reading the woman her rights to get an admissible confession after she volunteered (or was coerced into) the first one, then what do you want to disallow? Anything already said pre-Miranda reading?

So basically your argument is that because there is no bright-line, regarding treatment during pre-miranda warning statements, that police should be given nearly every reasonable doubt.

I think we both appreciate how difficult this issue is. I think that there are a number of possible solutions. However, the current approach is discriminatory on the basis of education and social class (hence arguably has incidental racial implications as well). IANAL, but my aunt is a public defender who does defend a number of indigent (sp?) individuals accused of various crimes. In general, our system is designed so that defending these individuals is very difficult.

If we want a system which recognizes equality in the application of constitutional rights, then the argument that the right must be asserted to be valid becomes problematic.

Of course this argument is largely academic on free speech issues where the right fundamentally must be asserted to be meaningful. However, imagine if you were required (as a citizen) to communicate an idea by our government and only by asserting this right were able to avoid it, then we might have an argument. Of course, this is the way it is in Public Schools with the Pledge, et. al. so I guess it is relevant after all...

Re:No. These are schools that teach evolution

[randallpowell]

Revisionist history is telling kids that America was founded by fundies so god can bless them as they force other nations into being Christian or face death from nuclear weapons.

weird.

[Anonymous Coward]

i never took this survey. they must be doing the election thing where they only interviewed a certain area...damn the bible belt. they made it to /.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[zippthorne]

The first ammendment does not say that we should pay for it. Those "hicks" which you have so colorfully described might not like paying to have themselves painted as backward hicks. The NEA should go simply because there is no acceptible compromise which does not 'censor' someone.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[b-baggins]

Not too worried about it. China's a two-bit communist thug dictatorship. The only thing that will save them from following North Korea into the ash pit of history is to adopt capitalism. Capitalism leads to a prosperous middle class. A prosperous middle class leads to the desire for political freedom. Good-bye Communists.

Then, if China follows the European route, they'll socialize themselves into whining irrelevance. If they follow the U.S. route, they'll become firm and fast friends in freedom. Either way, China won't be making military threats thirty years from now.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[coaxial]

A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".

The goverment controls Air America? That would be news to these guys and these guys as well.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

"figure out a way to exploit the overly religious" - T.V. Evangelist anyone.

Re:A student's perspective [tangent, OT]

[mjkjedi]

We need massive educational system reform. Teacher salaries should be considerably higher. There should be a better review process for the continued employment of teachers, and this process should be controlled by employed adults from a variety of areas. It shouldn't be controlled by students, as we would most definitely abuse that power, and it shouldn't be controlled by school administration, as they have already demonstrated incompetence in the process.

Amen!

I will point out, however, that people from the outside should be distrusted just as much as incompetent school administration -- especially business-people, who are incredibly inept at anything relating to edumahcation. (See San Diego Unified School District for an example of this. Hello, Alan Bersin.)

My point, I guess, is just that most of the people who promise reform are worse than the people already in power. In my opinion, the only people qualified to run schools are the teachers who are actually in the trenches, teaching. Parents are idiots, administrators are isolated and have forgotten whatever they knew about teaching, and business people never knew anything about education anyway.

In either case, the teachers who are actually doing the work here get caught between parents who are idiots, administrators who don't know what they're doing, and people from business who think schools can be run like businesses.

(I'm not a teacher, just a college freshman who has known enough good teachers to be angry that they're being stifled.)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the typical euro-baby attitude. Oh the state will look after all of us. I can't wait to the Russian show up on your doorstep again with the next Marxist revolution and totally fuck up Europe...

Then what will your nanny state do for ya!

phhhhhft!

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[EvanED]

I went to HS in PA, and my school offered a civics class. It wasn't required though, and wasn't in the main path that most seniors took. I don't know how complete it was.

Shouldn't that be W.E. kids don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I didn't RFTA!

Re:University administrators and the ACLU don't ge

[randallpowell]

Look at "Freedom of Religon",speech codes,hostile work enviorment,sexism,racism.diversity,cultural sensitivity and the like.

Diversity and cultural sensitivity are bad? Hell, war wil solve that problem. It's being educated in things that create it. Living in a state with others that are cultural clones of yourself makes for ignorance of the outside world. Most people-especially the "educated classes" do not understand or believe in the First Amendment.

Without the 1st admendment, we wouldn't have universities thus no educated people. Imagine no physicians.

Why are red staters so angry at colleges they never attended?

Re:2nd Amendment [winhat]

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a part of the kind in common use at the time.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the tendon which connects the head with the calf of the kind in common use at the time.

The meaning of the second amendment.

I am a human being. That should be obvious from my ability to move, and does not want to change your mind. I don't want to think they can change the world is a fully grown being.

Because you are the fleshy edges of the curtain, metaphorically speaking.

Guns should be obvious from my ability to move, and does not want to change your mind. I don't want to ban guns.

But guns have killed niggers in the extent of my possessions, but in the wars for their genocide. Decimated by manifest destiny. Tortured and enslaved in the past.

But guns have killed niggers in the abdomen which collects urine from the shoulder of an indigenous people.

The people that are crazy enough to think they can kill white people in addition to niggers.

U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Shocking. Absolutely shocking. No sarcasm here.

The Media already self-censors...

[katharsis83]

"Because, you should be allowed to show maimed, bleeding iraqis and american soldiers on television, but not burn certain pieces of cloth."

Actually, given the recent developements in embedded American jouranlists, mutilated bodies of Iraq's and American troops are expressly forbidden; the major news networks self-censor graphic violence or any attempts to quantify civilian casualities. When was the last time you saw a dead American soldier or Iraqi civilian on domestic TV? While this isn't directly government censorship, how quickly do you think an embedded reporter is going to get kicked out if he reports about numerous Iraqi dead or broadcasts pictures of mutilated American soldiers? This is why the networks self-censor war news.

For those in the states (like myself), try watching BBC News, Deutsche Welle, or even Al-Jazeera (yes i admit they're biased, but no more than Fox News is to the rest of the world) sometimes. It puts a totally different image of the war to you; not because they're extremely biased, but because I think many Americans are beginning to lose sight of the cost of the war in human lives.

It's irresponsible of domestic news organziations to not broadcast graphic images from Iraq; war should not be filtered through lenses of political correctness - the American public deserves to see and know what's happening in the name of freedom and democracy. I'm not saying broadcast blood and gore at prime-time, but on cable news networks we at least deserve to know what's being done in our name.

Problem becoming worse

[Anonymous Coward]

the 'threat' of communism was always some elderly diehards with their fingers on red buttons. Few people in their own countries truly believed in it by the 80s. It had a declining effect with generational change.

Islamist terrorism is a different spectre. The opposite is happening. The elderly people in the Muslim (especially Arab, as it is mostly their problem) don't believe in all the al Qaeda rubbish. They're the ones who want peace, a good smoke and family life. But the young people have steadily become more and more radicalized. They've been sturred up by a barrage of religionationalism from television, music, newspapers and general propaganda. What I'm saying is that support for al Qaeda is in a sharp upward gradiant amongst the younger generations, whereas communism was always becoming less popular. The attitudes I've seen are so harded now that the KKK seem soft in comparison.

Don't Be Sad--Use "Plain Old Text" mode!

[Dlugar]

If you use "Plain Old Text" mode it'll make your \n be
. You can still use a lot of htmlish tags like and too. I don't know why it's not the default.

Dlugar

Re:Don't Be Sad--Use "Plain Old Text" mode!

[DarkTempes]

thanks bunches =D

Why the wall fell

[junkgoof]

The wall came down because Gorby would not let the east germans shoot protesters. In a dictatorship (and Russia, like China, North Korea, Cuba et al, was a dictatorship) if you can't shoot people when they get uppity you don't have a dictatorship. One phone call was all it took:

"Hello sir, the people are rioting, we're going to shoot them, be right back. You'll send troops if we need them right?"
"You can't shoot them."
"What else can we do?"
"Glasnost, perestroika, openness, honesty..."
"OK, I'm cashing in my bullion, buying a walled estate, and bringing my bodyguards, bye now."

If they had shot protestors the wall would never have come down. It's going back up, but at least the Poles, the Czechs, the Ukrainians etc. are on the outside this time.

China is a good example. Students were asked about Tianamen Square massacre recently and they responded that the state was right to kill students. No sympathy for Zhao, either, even posthumously. They shot people, tyranny continued.

Very simple, if you have a nasty oppressive system you have to able to kill citizens on a whim. If you can't kill POed people the nasty oppressive system collapses. Too bad the USSR collapsed before Enron went down, they might have had a chance at economic succes.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Procrastin8er]

So I guess you agree with my point, liberal educators are biased when grading their students, if you write something that aligns with their leftist wacko world views, you get an better grade.

Thanks for validating my point you Stupid Asshole!!!!

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[justins]

Those "hicks" which you have so colorfully described might not like paying to have themselves painted as backward hicks.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa... easy there, pilgrim. I didn't say anything about them being backward hicks. That kind of comment would poison the discourse.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Here's the plan. We ID the students who selected the choice "newspapers should NOT be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories". Then we round each one up, and bind their hands & feet. We make their parents kneel in front of them, and then we execute their parents w/ a bullet to the head. Then we gouge the kids' eyes out so that their dead ma & pa are the last things they ever see. Then we throw them out of the country.

How can I justify this? Easy: self-defense.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of this discussion seems to confuse ignorance with opposition.

I agree ignorance of the Bill of Rights and basic constitutional structure is a bad thing, and I would bet that the general population would also come off badly on any test like this.

But suppose someone understands the 1st amendment and opposes it? That's at the least a different issue and not necessarily the fault of schools. Should schools be charged with the task of indoctrinating students so that they have the right views? I'm generally with the libertarian sentiments so prevalent on this list, but a lot of folks seem to interpret anti-libertarian views as prima facie evidence of stupidity.

Look, a lot of people instinctively favor censorship of views they dislike -- it takes a lot of education and reflection to move any significant number of folks to a position of tolerating speech they dislike. And don't forget the way Republicans used flagburning in past elections. These students' *parents* don't like the 1st amendment either. One of the few politicians who was able to articulate a position of toleration for flagburning in a populist way was, to his eternal credit, Jesse Ventura.

ask slashdot

[PMuse]

Should we add an amendment that says that if a right isn't listed in the constitution, people still have it?

Should we also add a sentence that says that, other than the specific things the Federal Government is authorized to do, the states are in charge of everything else?

[[What do you think that survey would show?]]

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[glamslam]

Hmm... Read what (the smarter Bush) Bush Sr. actually said:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

Re:Foreign? I have a question

[zx75]

I can't really say :) I'm Canadian. But as to the grasp of humour, you're relying pretty heavily on shared experience to find something funny. I'm aware enough that most of the time I 'get the joke', but there have been a few instances where I've just been left scratching my head. Often I recognize it as humour, but I simply don't share enough of the perspective to find it funny.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[zenyu]

"1862 A.D." instead of "1862 A.C.E."

Dude, both of those are wrong.

It should be written "A.D. 1862" or "1862 C.E.".

Jesus is believed to have been born sometime between 4 and 8 B.C. (Or, B.C.E.)
So it's not really centered on Jesus' birth, although that was the plan.

BTW the whole thing sucks since there is no year zero in either system.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[baronben]

someone should mod this up. Your speech is guaranteed, not your bullhorn. The students are free to go to the copy shop and print off their own articles and distribute them at school (as long as they don't disrupt classes), or off school grounds. The school pays for the printing of the newspaper, and therefore controls what's in it.

I think there's a misconception the power over which people control how their taxes are spent. You elect people to decide how that money is spent, you have no other say than that. I don't like the fact that some of my taxes are going to pay for guns, and other people don't like their taxes paying for art. It doesn't mean I can force the government to spent my taxes in ways I want, I can just vote for someone who will spend my taxes the way I want them to be spent.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents are responsible for their child's education, not the government, not their church, not anyone else in the world, them. We've been screwing things up for years by letting the government run education, and at some point, it's going to have to stop.

Apparently you don't work in public education. There are plenty of children whose parents DON'T take that responsibility. Public education fills in the gap, providing people with the closest thing we can give them to equal opportunity to excel if they so choose, regardless of the parents they were born to. You have all the right in the world to take your children out of school and educate them yourself if you so choose, but don't take away opportunities from all the other children in our society.

"We will bury you" was a mis-translation

[Anonymous Coward]

of we will leave you (behind) in our dust"
(a more modern translation might be "Eat my dust!"

Some poor interpreter had to translate on the fly (IIRC, when the speaker departed from the script).

Which story I guess just reinforces your point.

Freedom replaced with Fear

[jtshaw]

I get the impression that our government is simply trying to have us limit our own freedoms because of fear.

They want us to be afraid of everything these days. Things like "homeland security" and there idiotic "terrorist threat level" are examples of this. What is your average joe suppose to do? Board themselves up in there house and hide in the basement everytime the stupid color scale hits red? This is America, we are suppose to laugh in the face of terrorist and there attempts to make us fear, not run and hide.

The worst part about it is that it seams to be working. Lots of people do seam to be afraid of things... and not just terrorism.

News flash... Seeing a bare ass on TV isn't going to make your child a sex offender. Hearing an expletive won't turn a kid into a degenerate loser.

Education is, and always has been, the best method for making sure kids keep on the right track. I think it is a parents responsibility to make sure there children aren't scared to ask them questions about anything and everything. If your kid sees a word written somewhere (like the inside of a bathroom stall or the back of the seat on a bus) he/she should know they can always ask there parents and get a straight, correct, answer without any chance of getting in trouble. We should teach our kids about sex. We should tell them about "alternative" lifestyles they might be exposed to.

Anyway... I know when I was 13 my friends and I had already gotten our hands on numerous dirty magazines and other things of that nature and all of us managed to grow up, go to college, and live a decent life.

If you want censorship then get the hell out of this country, there are plenty of places you can go live if you want others making all your decisions for you. You don't deserve to live here if you believe in limiting others freedoms.

Re:Freedom replaced with Fear

[Anonymous Coward]

I am all for bare asses on Tv. I just hate explaining it to my 3 year old and I would like to wait and explain how great sex is when he is ready. By and by, that is my call. Not governments.

What does this have to do with children being ignorant of the Constitution? The real problem is our education system is built to maintain political power and not to further education. Every time a politician says no to a parent, he is already wrong. He should not be making the decision in the first place.

Or maybe it is something more obvious. The group they asked were just too young to understand concepts like freedom and liberty.

MOD AC ABOVE THRESHOLD

[Anonymous Coward]

mod up - this is true and not well known.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

70k and only 22? Damn, I couldn't take the pay cut.

Maybe when you get on the BOD, you'll be someone, but until then, you're just a damn scrub.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[JNighthawk]

I graduated last year and in 10th grade we had both "Citizenship and Government" and another history class. Of course, half a quarter (about 22 days) isn't nearly enough to cover everything.

Terrorism today = Terrorism against whites

[Anonymous Coward]

I think someone needs to clarify that terrorism in today's context means "terrorism against white people." Ironically enough, groups like the KKK, the skinheads, and the Neo-Nazis are not considered terrorists despite the fact that they are alive and thriving in the US (when was the last time $200 Billion+ was spent to combat the KKK). In 2004 alone there were more than 9,000 victims of hate crimes and over 41% of those were against people of color. Forget beheadings, people of color have been "terrorized" in the US for hundreds of years, unless you in the US don't consider slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and lynchings, acts of terrorism. If the US want to kill the terrorists, it should start in its own backyard.

What creates terrorism?

[Anonymous Bullard]

Terrorism is only an issue if you let it be one.

This is the extreme opposite of the military-religious "war on/of terror" approach, but it is almost as far from solving the issues that cause all that hatred that leads to terrorism.

Bunch of Irish guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the IRA. They had their reasons for fighting the British establishment.

Bunch of Basque guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the ETA. They had their reasons for fighting the Spanish establishment.

Bunch of Arab guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the Al-Qaeda. They had their reasons for fighting the American establishment.

Bunch of Chechen guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create their liberation army. They had their reasons for fighting the Russian establishment.

Bunch of Tibetan guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to... oh wait, they're freaking non-violent freedom-fighters so they can be conveniently ignored in favour of doing business with their occupiers...

Anyway, there is a certain pattern that would suggest that nations (often large and with imperialist tendencies) which insist on controlling people and territories outside their natural domain tend to be more affected by terrorism ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter") than smaller, democratic states which do not project their power outside their natural borders.

Perhaps recognizing and supporting all peoples' right of self-determination would help remove one of the major root causes of "terrorism"? If you lived under foreign occupation, what would you do?

I blaim political correctness.

[wcrowe]

Some of you will probably flame me for this, but I think political correctness is behind a lot of this attitude. More often than not, when first amendment rights are trampled, political correctness is at the bottom of it.

Re:I blaim political correctness.

[Anonymous Coward]

No flame here, honest! Actually the school system is there to teach kids why they must never speak until their master gives them permission, so this is natural.

Re:I blaim political correctness.

[Big_Al_B]

I've never understood this argument. What is it that you would like to say, but you don't feel you can and still be politically correct?

Re:I blaim political correctness.

[Cheerio Boy]

I've never understood this argument. What is it that you would like to say, but you don't feel you can and still be politically correct?

No because by definition Political Correctness is a rally against unpopular opinions. Thus freedom of speech gets trampled so as to "not offend".

Re:I blaim political correctness.

[Cheerio Boy]

What is it that you would like to say, but you don't feel you can and still be politically correct?

Blah! Mis-read the question!

Things like opinions about peoples habits, the way they look, the way they act. All of it.

The ability to criticize anybody about anything gets pushed to the wayside due to not being "Politically Correct" because anything that is not "Politically Correct" is an "unpopular opinion" by definition.

Re:I blaim political correctness.

[Big_Al_B]

Blah! Mis-read the question!

I was going to say...:^)

Things like opinions about peoples habits, the way they look, the way they act. All of it.

Okay, let's say you have some opinion "x" regarding something in your list there. So you're arguuing that one of the following is true:

1) "I wish I could say "x" but I will get censored for being politically incorrect."
2) "I wish I could say "x" but I won't because I'll be critized for being politically incorrect."

I don't buy either one.

Many pundits, commentators, comedians, politicians, clergy and other public opinion leaders express a lot "politically incorrect" opinions as a matter of doing business. Hell, some of them make their whole living being politically incorrect on purpose.

And if you're worried that people will label you sexist, racist, or whatever-ist for expressing a given opinion, I would ask, "Why do you have reason to worry?" Point being, if you're conscious that people will interpret you that way, but you don't think you should be interpreted that way, then you should say it, and be prepared to defend it logically, respectfully and honestly. If you can do that, then the "politically incorrect" label is meaningless. If your defense is illogical, disrespectful, or dishonest, then hey, the shoe fits and you should wear it.

It takes courage to express yourself publicly. Even if you do it respectfully and honestly, there is a chance people will criticize you. That comes with the territory.

The ability to criticize anybody about anything gets pushed to the wayside due to not being "Politically Correct" because anything that is not "Politically Correct" is an "unpopular opinion" by definition.

Who is preventing unpopular opinions from being expressed?

Re:I blaim political correctness.

[Cheerio Boy]

Okay, let's say you have some opinion "x" regarding something in your list there. So you're arguuing that one of the following is true:

1) "I wish I could say "x" but I will get censored for being politically incorrect."
2) "I wish I could say "x" but I won't because I'll be critized for being politically incorrect."

I don't buy either one.

Many pundits, commentators, comedians, politicians, clergy and other public opinion leaders express a lot "politically incorrect" opinions as a matter of doing business. Hell, some of them make their whole living being politically incorrect on purpose.

I think the key here is "public opinion leaders". If you have some sort of defense against attack that's fine - many of the people you pointed out do. Comedians are defended by their job, politicians are defended by their friends in and out of office, clergy is defended by the church even if the church denounces what they say, etc. The average man does not have those defenses.

And if you're worried that people will label you sexist, racist, or whatever-ist for expressing a given opinion, I would ask, "Why do you have reason to worry?" Point being, if you're conscious that people will interpret you that way, but you don't think you should be interpreted that way, then you should say it, and be prepared to defend it logically, respectfully and honestly. If you can do that, then the "politically incorrect" label is meaningless. If your defense is illogical, disrespectful, or dishonest, then hey, the shoe fits and you should wear it.

So if a child pornographer, sex offender, nazi, or bigot can defend himself/herself logically they should be able to speak without fear even though they are defending an unpopular opinion? I agree with you but try and find lives not ruined in real life when people speak of such things. You'll be hard pressed to find examples where these people or people of similar thoughts had their freedom of speech upheld.

It takes courage to express yourself publicly. Even if you do it respectfully and honestly, there is a chance people will criticize you. That comes with the territory.

I agree with this. But the point of having freedom of speech is to be able to express your opinions without fear of serious attack. That's that whole point here. I'm arguing that we no longer have that protection as citizens of the US.

Who is preventing unpopular opinions from being expressed?

If you have to ask this question you have not been paying attention to current events. Period. Umm...let's see - Free Speech Zones is one of the first that comes to mind. A lady that got removed from a political rally for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt is another. Just look around and you'll find examples a plenty.

Re:I blaim political correctness.

[Big_Al_B]

I think the key here is "public opinion leaders"...The average man does not have those defenses.

If the average man has a vehicle (tongue, pen, keyboard) with which to express his opinion, then he has the same vehicle with which to defend himself. But this notion you have of attack and defense with regard to opinion is too vague. Who is staging an attack, from whom is the average man defending his opinion?

So if a child pornographer, sex offender, nazi, or bigot can defend himself/herself logically they should be able to speak without fear even though they are defending an unpopular opinion?

Your examples here are poor. A criminal's public confession is not protected speech. If you meant that they should be able argue what they do should not be criminalized, then they do have that right, but must figure out how to do it without implicating themselves in a specific criminal act. If they do end up getting caught and convicted, it wasn't because of their opinions, it was because of their actions.

In the cases of a Nazi or bigot, they do have free speech, and do attempt to defend themselves publicly. There are many, many racist and anti-semetic organizations that demonstrate publicly and publish works frequently. If they, rightly IMHO, get criticized for it, then that shouldn't surprise them much. If their lives are "ruined" for it, then I guess they should re-examine their lives.

If you have to ask this question you have not been paying attention to current events. Period. Umm...let's see - Free Speech Zones is one of the first that comes to mind. A lady that got removed from a political rally for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt is another. Just look around and you'll find examples a plenty.

These are not cases of politically incorrect opinions. These are cases of dissenting opinions being oppressed by government entities that don't show much respect for the values they are entrusted to uphold. And there is nothing "unpopular" about criticizing Bush; almost half the country voted against the guy in a viciously contested election. The state of free speech in this country is much more at risk because of corrupt policymakers and enforcerers than it is from political correctness.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Banning firearms or marijuana isn't because a few were irresponsible, but because there will always be a few who are irresponsible and it's supposed to keep them from imposing costs on everyone else. Are you kidding - comparing marijuana prohibition to gun control? The costs that are imposed from marijuana criminalization far outweigh the costs we would see were it to be legalized.

Re:TFA's authors don't get the 1st Amendment, eith

[The Master Control P]

INSERT = "white, male, usually upper-class and married"

Which is why every president since Lincoln has been a $INSERT church-going Christian.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're under 18, then good luck with those rights sucker.

And that's not all!

[Headcase88]

Let's not forget Latervia. They've had a pretty good run too ;)

Lightning

[Anonymous Coward]

Carry on with your life and you are still more likely to be killed by a lightening strike than an act of terrorism

Lightning kills about 73 people in the US per year

During the last 40 years, there have been more people killed by international terrorism in the US than by lightning.

The Kindness of Strangers?

[SteveSgt]

As far as inequitable education distribution, you're completely ignoring private charity which I gaurantee will be there if the state stops funding schools and gives citizens their money back.

It's easy to get people to donate to charity for some extraordinary crises, like the tsunami. But getting them to donate for some recurring cost like running a school system for less forunate -- well lets just say that England tried that during Charles Dickens' time -- it didn't work very well.

I'll grant that our public education system could benefit from some entrepreneurial spirit. But selling off the system to a bunch of robber barons is not going to give the least fortunate among us anywhere near equal opportunity.

You might be greedy enough to think that you don't owe anything to the well-being of your fellow citizens. I for one am happy to pay, accoring to my means, to support services provided by my goverment of and by the people that I may potentially need at some future time.

Re:The Kindness of Strangers?

[voisine]

I don't owe anything to my fellow citizens. Their need is not a claim on my ability. I do however choose to help them. It's called charity. I do it out of the kindness of my heart, as a gift, not payment of any debt owed. I have a problem with my fellow citizens taking my property at gun point. (Don't think it's at gun point? Try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes men with guns to show up at your doorstep. They will use them if you resist with any kind of force.) To rub salt in the wound, the money is then mostly wasted and used inefficiently.

As far as England is concerned, we also tried it before Truman's new deal. We got better education for fewer resources. I'm not saying it was perfect or that it would work exaclty the same now, only that it is certainly doable.

You're just flat wrong about charity. Gate's foundation? Church programs? I'm not saying it's as easy to raise funds for ongoing expenses as it is for distasters, but it is done even now with 50% of what people earn being directly or indirectly confiscated by the state. Imagine if people had twice the resources and knew the government wasn't going to help the less fortunate for them.

Do you like the fact that you're paying for military protection for basicly the entire globe, massively subsidising whole industries like airlines, farm corporations, telecom, transportation, and paying to incarcerate and destroy the lives of millions of non-violent cannibus users? Hey at least a few inner city kids are getting a hot lunch (sorry, no education for you)

Re:The Kindness of Strangers?

[SteveSgt]

To rub salt in the wound, the money is then mostly wasted and used inefficiently.

I've worked in state and city government, and for large corporations. The government organizations I worked for did far more with far fewer resources than any of the companies I worked for. People who choose to work in government, that I encountered, were there out of idealism that they could make a difference -- happy to be there in spite of lower wages than they could get in private industry. The companies I worked for are full of greedy bastards who think primarily of their own gain, and what they can gouge the company and the customer for.

As far as England is concerned, we also tried it before Truman's new deal. We got better education for fewer resources. I'm not saying it was perfect or that it would work exaclty the same now, only that it is certainly doable.

I consider myself a product of a public school system, in the relatively poor state of Iowa, that worked very well. Lots of local community control. Lots of parental involvement.

There was a large jump in US literacy between 1940 and 1960. I would attribute that to the rise of public education programs -- which were much less common before then.

Imagine if people had twice the resources and knew the government wasn't going to help the less fortunate for them.

They'd be buying bigger TVs, bigger SUVs, and bigger houses, sending their kinds to more expensive private schools. Every man for himself! You'll have a hard time convincing most people that, if their taxes were eliminated, that they should still pay, say, 20%, to charities.

Do you like the fact that you're paying for military protection for basicly the entire globe,

Nope. I didn't vote for people who support this agenda.

...massively subsidising whole industries like airlines,

Hmmmm. A tricky one. In general, I certainly don't favor government subsidies of businesses. But take a small town like Burlington, Iowa. If there wasn't some regulation and subsidy, the town would not be served by any airlines -- the nearest airport with a commercial airline would be 2:30 hours away.

...farm corporations, telecom, transportation,

Nope.

and paying to incarcerate and destroy the lives of millions of non-violent cannibus users?

What I find interesting is that most of these examples you cite were instituted as part of a conservative or Replublican agenda. Hmmmmm.

Re:The Kindness of Strangers?

[voisine]

if their taxes were eliminated, that they should still pay, say, 20%, to charities.

They wouldn't *need* to give 20%, because the people who used to need charity would also have twice the resources, plus private charities are vastly more efficient than government programs, and I still think you'd be shocked at how much people are willing to give when they see a real need. Just think if we had 20 Gate's foundations and Rockefeller foundations instead of 2. They've made much more lasting benefits for social causes than the government ever has. Now add to that the most generous middle class society on the planet and double their resources. I'm telling you, you're just flat wrong about the charity thing.

What I find interesting is that most of these examples you cite were instituted as part of a conservative or Replublican agenda. Hmmmmm.

The Democrats support the same agenda. Check the voting records. I'd call it a Republicrat agenda. I think it's unconsionable to vote for either. I voted for Badnarik.

happy to be there in spite of lower wages than they could get in private industry. The companies I worked for are full of greedy bastards who think primarily of their own gain, and what they can gouge the company and the customer for.

Corporations can only gouge their customers if they're protected from competition by government regulation, otherwise their customers would just go to the competition. I agree though that they do gouge whenever given an opportunity. They'll take full advantage of any market inefficiencies the system gives them. As far as government employed teachers, the ones I know are actively involved in teacher's unions lobying against any and all reforms, kicking and screaming about any attempt at making them accountable for educating their students. I am also a product of the public education system, though I like to think I emerged mostly unscathed through sheer force of will and obstinance. I distinctly remember hiding my programmable calculator under the desk hoping I wouldn't get caught learning to program durring class.

Re:The Kindness of Strangers?

[gordo3000]

just to correct some horribly flawed statistics you are throwing around:

The average tax burden of an American citizen is around 30%(give or take, it was about 33% before Bush's tax cuts so I'm sure its fallen). as a general idea, about 550 billion are collected by the states(http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/0300uss tax.html)and the federal government in 2003 collected was about 1.78 trillion, so in total we have only 2.3 trillion.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequen ce =0

do you honestly believe that in 2003 local governments took in nears 2.7 trillion dollars. This is what is needed to have a tax burden of 50 % as you said. but unfortunately, I can't find that number readily.

Eve if we say it matches state outlays, we are then talking about less htan 2.9 trillion in tax revenues. Our GDP was 10.8 trillion dollars. in the ERP, it says that our personal income in 2002 was 8.9 trillion, so even if we use this number, which is smaller than the 2003 number(thought I can't get a complete year's data, only quarterly seasonal estimates) , we are talking about 32%. and this number already subtracts out some taxes that are paid.

so no, most people would not see there income double, a much more meager increase of 50 %(from levels they see now),and this is including the very wealthy who would see there incomes double.

why do I go through all of this? because using just complete BS and trying to use it as support of your argument is just bad form.

Now if we are to argue the low income classes, there tax burden is much, much less that 33%. taking into account the federal government and income taxes, the lowest classes see either 10 or 15% of htere money taxed as compared to the middle class which sees around 25%.

http://www.pgaol.msu.edu/html/2004_federal_incom e_ tax_rates.html

This means you are talking about a lot less money than you originally thought.

There aren't 20 people in this country that can start gate's foundations and the gate's foundation doesn't give nearly the money our government does for relief efforts. Name a social cause the Gate's foundation has made a lasting effect on.

If you want a way to improve public education, give the public educators some competition. It has worked wonders in certain places(same book I noted earlier). You don't need to get rid of them(as long as you feel everyone deserves a certain minimum as education goes). but it is shown that in districts which voucher programs, many schools get in gear to compete.

Re:The Kindness of Strangers?

[voisine]

You are probably correct on the taxes. I was caclulating it from the other end, 30% income tax, 5% sales tax, 15% payroll tax, unemployment insurance tax, corporate income tax, tarrifs, fuel taxes, telecom taxes, not to mention all the indirect taxes caused by increased consumer prices due to over-regulation. I forgot to account for all the deductions and tax breaks, but your average middle class citizen is paying about 50%. It's the corporations with their expensive tax consultants that throw off the total relative to the GDP.

The Gates foundation is still pretty new and just finding it's legs, but they are already pouring hundreds of millions into things like finding a cure for malaria. They're modeling themselves after the major successes of the Rockefeller foundation. The Rockefellers bankrolled most of the research that lead to the major advances in medical science, food production, and public hygene in the early part of the century, plus they built hundreds of schools in the south, and made major contributions towards rebuilding europe after the war. Thought the government payed for the research that cured polio and smallpox? Nope, you can thank the grand daddy of the robber barons for those little gems. Instead of pouring billions into caring for the sick like the big G would have, they instead poured hundreds of millions into finding cures for the root causes. Where do you think the government even got the idea for it's major social programs.

Re:The Kindness of Strangers?

[voisine]

holly crap, how could I forgot to mention property taxes and capital gains tax

Re:The Kindness of Strangers?

[gordo3000]

note first that all the taxes you mentioned are taken into account and if you use the final number I did, personal income, you are only using what people have, not businesses. you should check out the Economic Report of the President, the tables in the back end can tell you where these numbers come from.

next point: the rockefeller foundation was founded in 1913(just scan there site for a reference).
Follow the next link and try to get a little educated about what you are creditting them. namely, whoever told you the rockefellers bankrolled the cure for smallpox is a complete moron. The first type of cure was around for almost 200 years before the foundation existed and the most well known one(using cowpox to infect people first) was around for over 100 years before the foundation. The foundation may have helped speed up its implementation in the developing world, but a lot of that credit really goes to the world health organization.

http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/biology /a bpi/history/history9.html

further, as polio goes, the man creditted with the discovery of the cure(Jonas Salk) did so while working at the University of Pittsburg with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis(started by our president who had polio, roosevelt(sp?)).

The Rockefellers didn't bankroll anything you have claimed. They are creditted with building schools. If you are talking about major contributions to rebuilding Europe after WW II, our government did that to and in much larger quantities.

I have no idea where the original ideas for social programs of the government came from and while you don't provide a single source where I can learn this, you do a good job of intimating where you think it came from.

so I'll give you this chance to try again, we'll act like this last rebuttal never happened and I'll wait for something with some proof to it. Normative analyses are all fun and good unless you wnat to actually convince people.

Re:The Kindness of Strangers?

[voisine]

Sorry for the shoddy research. I was writing that from memory. It was yellow fever I was thinking of, not smallpox. I appologise. They also discovered DNA and did the research to figure out how to mass produce and productise penicillin. The polio research was done mostly by private institutions, which may have been partly or mostly funded by rockefeller as they were the major player in that area at the time, but I can't seem to find any specific numbers:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-14-98.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/people ev ents/p_gates.html

http://www.rockefeller.edu/history.php

There was this article I read comparing the social benefits secured in the 20th century by government programs vs private foundations. I can't seem to find it anywhere and it's driving me crazy! My (admittedly poor) memory of that article is what I was basing my comments on.

Also something interesting I found from wikipedia:

In recent years, the WHO's work has involved more collaboration with NGOs and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as with foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. Some of these collaborations may be considered public-private partnerships [3]; half the WHO budget is financed by private foundations and industry.

Re:The Kindness of Strangers?

[gordo3000]

actually, I have been giving you a hard time so I"m going to stop with this one(as goes giving you a hard time). I will very much admit that private charities give a great deal of money and do great work. I will also agree that a great deal of polio research was done with private organizations. It just happens to be the man who actually found the cure got most of his funding from the government. This isn't to say NGO's didn't do a great deal of work, it just also shows that they definitely didn't do it without a great deal of effort by our government.

I have a good idea where you read the article you are trying to remember; there is a very influential liberatarian think tank that comes out with findings that show this all the time. There are also very conservative ones that will show this and very liberal ones that disagree. I have yet to actually read a econometrics paper that shows this or otherwise.

The WHO does almost all its work with NGO's. This is probably because it is a combination of two things that work really well, the efficiency of NGO's on small projects with the ability to coordinate between the entire world that the WHO brings to the table.

I actually feel there is a place for both in our society, the complete abolition of either one is not for the good but each has strengths the other doesn't. As education goes, I do not know what is the best solution but I doubt it is removing governments from this work.

to note your first source, which is from the cato foundation. Just realize that is the premier liberatarian think tank. I'm not bashing the article as much as you should realize anything you read there will select facts to show how the government needs to not be in almost anything. As a prime example, it doesn't tell you that the National Foundation on Infantile paralysis was started by the federal government.

I can't argue too many facts put forward by cato because I haven't researched this so deeply. but I suggest if your interested in reading some opposing view, you should check out the other two major think tanks in the US>
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.brooking s.edu/

I don't have the time to actually find articles, but in my public economics class, we are encouraged to read all three to see arguments made from people with the 3 major sets of beliefs. I think you might find it enjoyable if you are wiling to actually discuss things. but I"m outta here.

And in legal issues they can use "conspiracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

When people are convicted of "conspiracy" charges it means the same thing ... they couldn't figure out who did it... just that one of the group was responsible and that they were all involved before or after the fact (planning, cover-up, etc.). It is routinely used to leverage witnesses who would rather not stick their necks out. Compare and contrast with the classroom cliche.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Doomdark]

Could be. Perhaps I completely misunderstood your point(s)... maybe I read too much into your commment, grouping it with "but public-funded education is EVIL" group, and assuming that was the context of the comment.

You misunderstand

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1988 decision made it easier for schools to censor school papers. Basically, if the paper had a specific agenda and was edited by the school administration, not the students, then they could veto articles.

Your paper would not have been helped by the decision.

In any case, it sounds like your first ammendment rights were violated. Also, the school has no right to ban underground newspapers... they can prevent public distribution at school or reading it aloud but they can't stop you from writing them, sharing them, or possesing them (assuming they don't violate other laws like copyright or indecency laws).

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Doomdark]

Doh. What a lousy troll... I eat tougher ones with my breakfast cereal. Not much enjoyment from such a canned lukewarm run of the mill bland rant -- so why did you waste a perfectly valid comment id with it?

Go back to your mama, little one, grow a bit, and come back when you have something more interesting to say.

For most of my classmates, in a word... NO

[The Master Control P]

Must you remind me of the results of my Government class (high school senior talking) taking the INS test? It was horrible. About 5% of us got better than 95%, and about 20-25% of us passed.

And this test... was asking things like "How many stars are there on the flag", "what do they represent?", and "the three branches of government are called what?" How in the name of all that is good does one fail such a test? The only question on there that natural citizens shouldn't be expected to know is what INS form you use to apply for naturalization. (The teacher gave that one to us...)

(For perspective, myself and my class were from a generally middle to upper-middle class city of 250,000 in the Southern California area).

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Kiryat Malachi]

Should have talked to the ACLU - for a while (I think it has since shut down), my high school had exactly that - an independent paper, published by students, and distributed on school grounds without prior restraint.

The case would be "Independent Emery" vs. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Michigan courts circa 1992 - I couldn't find anything to link to online, though.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[mikeb39]

At some point? That's the attitude that's they want you to have. Eventually someones going to have to stand up and do something (not you of course, somebody) or it's going to be too late.

Oh look, several years from now, it IS too late and nobody did anything. How bout stepping up NOW?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[commodoresloat]

Actually, he presented actual proof of no such thing. There was no meeting in Malaysia, at least not one that proves anything the troll above is claiming. The Bush admin has admitted that this claim was a mistake based on confusion over names they thought sounded similar. The poster above - or his blogger friend - likely is well aware of this, but continues to spread this falsity because it helps his argument, even though he knows it is false. Check out his blatant lie about riverbend (the Iraqi blogger) at the end of this post. This guy is a troll, which explains the moderation.

why not?

[alizard]

That's how the Swiss do it. Members of the militia (i.e. just about every male in Switzerland) are required to keep FULL AUTO MILITARY assault rifles at home in case of a militia callup.

Feel free to argue if you like, but personally, I think it a reasonable assumption that the Swiss government knows what its own gun laws are.

RBut they do teach

[GnarlyNome]

Freedom from religon

Re:TFA's authors don't get the 1st Amendment, eith

[Anonymous Coward]

Right that's it: Inalienable rights are only inalienable until a religious nut wants everyone to go to Hell for disobeying the church's laws.

Oh and separation of Church and State is just fine until it actually separates church and state, paving way malicious indecent publications about anti-slavery and freedom to have a picture of someone with no clothes.

and public expression of religious views brings down a torrent of ridicule.

This is because people can talk back. What's great about this country is that fanatics have nothing to blame but their own mindless sadism when their obscene anti-humanity ideas are wrong.

If only they read books

[danila]

Only an educated populace can appreciate the freedoms. It always was so and always will be.

"Teaching" about the First Amendment is pointless. The understanding of its role and importance can only come from reading the great books of Plato, Voltair and Hegel and learning about world history from books and museums. Watching History Channel (if even that) is not a valid substitute.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you realize, of course, that in most of the wonderfully enlightened States of this Union, that when you provide home-schooling for your child, you need to provide notice, follow a government-approved curriculum, and provide constant proof that the student is meeting government standards. Home-schooling your child is like getting drafted into the ranks of public school teachers, only the pay is worse.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[danila]

Bullshit. If parents were responsible for the education, we would still be living in the Stone Age. The society is responsible for children's education and public schools funded by taxes are just one of the ways of cattying out this responsibility.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[danila]

OK, another elitist with hidden class prejudice, even though he probably doesn't realise it...

You can't teach students to be good citizens. You can't make a "functional citizen" by giving a few classes on civics and basic math. The only way to achive this noble goal is to develop the kids as humans as much as you can in the 10+ years they are at school. You need to give them all the knowledge of human civilization, the philosophy, the art, the great literature, fill them with the ideas of Kant, Plato, Marx, make them think, make them understand all that. With the same intensity you must give them natural sciences, explain everything we already learned about the Universe and how it works. Only after you do that can a person become a "functional citizen".

P.S. This applies to all kids, even young black drug pushers from the ghetto raised by single moms on welfare. Good education does wonders to everyone.

Most people know diddly about proper flag handling

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people wouldn't know proper flag handling if it slapped them upside the face. Refer to all the people flying flags on their cars and then letting them fall into the gutters after 9/11. Or those that leave flags out unlighted after dark or in bad weather when it's not an all-weather flag.

Was about to say the same thing

[Moraelin]

It's funny, really, seeing the first amendment be invoke as some sacred right to troll a privately own bulletin board, or cheat in an online game (apparently duplicating quest items is a form of speech, don't you know), or whatever. And the ones who scream the loudest are the ones who have no fscking clue at all what that ammendment says.

In fact, I'll go one step forward and say: they seem to interpret it as actually meaning anyone _but_ the government. You ban them off a game for cheating, and they'll scream for months about how you violated their first ammendment righst. But if the government decides that it's unpatriotic to say this or that, or imprisons someone for saying non-patriotic things... hey, that's ok. It's the government, after all. They're allowed to do that, right?

Sad.

Re:They aren't confused / misunderstanding complet

[HeghmoH]

Could you please point out the section that says the Bill of Rights only applies to US citizens? I'm having trouble finding it.

The history of the term "political correctness"

[driptray]

Back in the 1970s, people on the left used the term "ideologically sound", first as something of a compliment, and later as a semi-sarcastic put-down applied to people who took themselves and their political positions too seriously.

Eventually "ideologically sound" gave way to "politically correct", which better expressed the sense of ludicrousness that many on the left felt for other lefty's self-seriousness.

And then, out of nowhere, the right somehow overheard the term, and began using it in a completely serious way to disparage the left. What had formerly been a term one lefty used to poke gentle fun at another lefty became a serious weapon in the hands of the right.

The bizarre thing is that this transformation in the way "political correctness" began to be used coincided with the rise of the right, and the withering away of the public left. The ironies were too much - at a time when mainstream politics lurched to the right, the right began using a left-wing term of irony to attack the left for their supposed dominance. Absurd, and yet it worked for the very reason that the left were so weak and the right so strong.

The only reason that the term "politically correct" became so popular is that it was precisely wrong. Had it been correct, the right would never have the cultural power to make it stick.

Conclusion: Today, "political correctness" means the opposite of what is intended. It is evidence of the dominance of the right.

Re:The history of the term "political correctness"

[Anarcho-Goth]

IMO the real irony of "political correctness" is that the liberal neo-cons seem so much more obsessed with being "politicaly correct" than the people they criticize.

For instance, any disagreement with the current regime or foreign policy (past or pressent) is anti-american.
Another is any disagreement with military conduct, even criticizing military strategy, is said to be not "supporting the troops."

As if tarifs and trade barriers weren't enough....

[M_Cheevy]

Here in NZ, our tax law is quite clear. There are very few loopholes, and corporations are taxed at the exact same rate as human beings. Yet still they manage to thrive and multiply. In fact, R&D is not considered a pre-tax expense. It's just a cost of doing business, yet still we innovate (e.g. WETA Digital)

Despite the US making loads of mouth-music about "Free Trade" it props up its Corporations with the most generous corporate welfare of any other country (currently adds up to $150 billion) as well as tarrif protections and price controls.

If corporations have the same rights as an individual (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), they should have the same obligations -- but they don't, do they? They are taxed less, they can't be arrested or do jail time even if they knowingly and willfully kill purely to protect already their over-inflated profit margin (Ford Pinto).

<sarc>Obviously we can't ask these "people" to share the burden while they reap all those benefits. They are too poor, too weak, too frail, too moronic to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world.</sarc>

Re:in school the 1st means nothing

[bird603568]

from the right means lim x+ of some funciton. that is a RIGHT HAND LIMIT and ALL 3 of my calc teachers said it goes this way: - . There because you can't get bigger than it's impossible. O thank you about my english, im a science person. would you make fun of Einstein because he sucked at school. Not saying i'm one of thesmartes people ever, but would you?

Re:Violation of First Amendment Right to Expressio

[EmagGeek]

Well, just remember the motivation behind the school's banning of the flags.. that motivation is the fact that SOMEONE is always whining about SOMETHING to the school... they will look at you as just another whiner.

The way to fix schools is not to complain, but to get reasonable people onto school boards. School boards all too often are local folks with too much time on their hands that neither know the value of their freedom nor are willing to defend it. Consequently, they won't go out of their way to defend your younger brother's freedom to wear an American flag.

Getting people on school boards who have the nads to tell the whiners to shut up and put up will do a lot to get rid of the idealogue of intolerance that is the problem in the schools. By the way, guess which end of the political spectrum is in control of schools?

Many countries.

[orasio]

The US supported dictatorships in Argentina and Uruguay, too, that's part of Plan Condor (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operat ion_Condor/.

In Uruguay, the left (FA) was the minority in that time, but they made the mistake of having a 350k+ people public gathering, in a country with 1.5 million voters.
The elections were stolen from the favorite a center-leftist to say the least, with a little help from the CIA (e.g.: dead people voting, burned votes, it's not clear who would have won otherwise), and were won by the the authoritarian extreme right that later gave the government to the military for 11 dark years .
"Special forces" got trained in Panama by US forces, in special "intelligence" techniques, like the ones you have seen in iraq performed to prisoners. They used them on comunists and tupamaros (a guerrilla group that was already completely in jail), and on everybody they didn't like.

Those military groups wouldn't have ever attained that power without the lots of support from the outside that they got. Of course, the US were not as important in Uruguay as in other countries, but it shows the kind of support they had for such regimes in south America.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[beakburke]

I read it, and it echo's what I just said. It wasn't that it COULDN'T be done. But that doing so would be much more expensive in lives and dollars, and it would also mean upsetting coalition partners. And it simply wasn't viewed as being important enough by the realist school of advisors who ran the foreign policy apparatus in the GHWB whitehouse.

Ironically, after 1991, the weapons inspectors found Iraq was much closer to having a nuclear weapon than the intelligence community believed. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of the result this time. I wonder if they had known how close Saddam actually was to producing nuclear weapons in 1991 if the decision might have been different. Remember, they knew Saddam had a weapons program, they just thought that he was years away from having the capability of building nuclear bomb and further from a long range delievery system.

9/11 didn't really "change everything" so much as it made people realize that the "stability" that they were protecting wasn't stable. It's didn't change the world, it changed our assumptions about it. If you want to argue about how much freedom is worth in terms of dollars and lives, and whether the US has any obligation to risk it's people and money for the freedom of others, then that's a debate worth having. Just remember that US history isn't to kind to that proposition. (Just look at how many other countries the US fought in, and how many wars were actually fought IN the US.)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[3arwax]

Gay repression is a matter of opinion and students should not be forced to agree with it.
Abstinence is really the only safe way in many people's opinions, including my own. Shouldn't that have more of a focus? Handing out condoms encourages children to have sex pretending it is "safe". Is it the job of the school to encourage such behavior?

We all have our own opinions but who has the right to judge what my children are taught and exposed to while they are in public education? Isn't this still my right? I will not let my child be taught the benefits of oral sex just as I will not let my child be taught the benefits of drug use from a dealer.

If my children have questions about things then I encourage them to come and talk to me about it. I am not squemish about these things but there is are proper times and levels as to when this information should be presented.

The first amendment only goes so far. I don't believe it gives us the right to force others to listen to our opinion. It does not protect all speech at all times and all places. It is not to let the minority oppress the majority with their opinions. Instead it is to allow the minority to speak up and let them be heard by those who will listen.

Isn't the real question who funds the groups that are trying to push homosexuality and sex? I know the ACLU and other such groups are bought and paid for by the pornography industry. Since we love to accuse politicians about strongly having the agenda of its supporters that it would be fair to say who these people really work for? Homosexuals make much better customers and it is all really about the money for these guys.

Please keep this discussion going.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[ifwm]

"A TEACHING JOB IS COMPLETELY CUSHY"

Spoken like someone who thinks manual labor is the only kind that matters. Probably because it's the only kind you're good at.

Incidentally my teaching job requires me to wrestle (and sometimes be assualted by) students with severe emotional and mental disabilities. You couldn't do it. I worked as a roofer for my dad every summer in Florida until I was 17. You couldn't do that either.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[orasio]

Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.


Nonsense.
Well, at least it seems as nonsense.
If your paper does not belong to the highschool, then what is the principal doing reading it before it is posted?

Anyway, if you already have the articles, you can always publish it independently, previous talk to the sponsors.

That is not a free speech issue, it's just someone using the power they have.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[plague3106]

This is true. Overall I don't think i had any lousy teachers. I think the number of those increases as the average income of the area the school is in decreases. Its almost like poor = stupid. And I'm not convinced that being poor causes stupidity, because it also seems to work the other way around too...you're poor b/c you are stupid. Some schools might not be as high quality as others, but it doesn't justify dropping out either I'd think.

The 'jesus is god' teacher should be fired if he's working for a public school. Thats his personal belief and he shouldn't be trying to force it onto others' children.

I'm not sure why you'd want to legalize cannibalism (or even what it really has to do with this topic). Most people don't want to be someone else's lunch so killing them for that is denying them their rights.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[plague3106]

I think you'd have to study the effects of it first. True, if you setup your will to allow your friends to do so,and they want to, it probably should be ok.

However, given that no other living creature i'm aware of will 'eat' its own species tells me something. Look no further then mad cow disease to get an idea of why this might be a bad idea.

Re:Slightly off topic, but... (free assembly)

[HeghmoH]

If you could walk to your meeting place in the 18th century, you can walk there in the 21st. The car just makes it more convenient, and there is no amendment that gives us a right to convenience.

Why should they know anything more?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids aren't granted as many legal rights as adults, so their experience to this point has been one of restriction and restraint within parameters controlled by authorities. Learning is not just memorization, experience is an important part. How do you expect kids to understand freedom of speech when they haven't had any, ever? It's just (boring) words to memorize for them. It doesn't mean anything real.

Personally, I never seriously adopted a political philosophy until I was years into college, after it started to mean something because I could legally vote and because I was moving towards independence and self-reliance for the first time. The issues, for once, resonated -- I cared. You can't drill that into students.

We are complaining that kids aren't accurately describing the light, meanwhile they're chained up behind a fire in a cave...

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[j_snare]

The US has also refused UN weapons inspections.

Indeed, but we didn't sign a cease-fire that said that we would allow them.

Taking and holding Baghdad was judged impossible in 1991, and it's probably impossible now. The difference is that Bush Sr. had the sense to listen to his military advisers.

And what does that have to do with the fact that Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors, on the condition that if you keep fooling around we were going to come back.

Warning someone 200 times that you're going to kill them doesn't make it legal to do so. The same principle applies to nations.

No, and warning them we are going to hold up our end of a bargain that they made with us earlier doesn't make it legal either, the bargain they made earlier does.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[j_snare]

Saddam has been kicking inspectors out of his country, then saying "Oh, come right in," for the last 10 years. Then he wonders why people were getting annoyed with him.

Sure they were making progress, he said that right after Saddam kicked them out again. And then Saddam offered to let them come back in. More stalling tactics.

The thing is, I agree that our current President Bush went about it the wrong way. He really should have built more of a coalition, since everyone else should have held up their end of the bargain as well. The problem is indeed that we were sending the wrong message. The message we should have been sending is that the UN does still have teeth. Unfortunately, we sent that the UN is toothless, since they won't hold up their end of the deal, but the US might come in the UN's place.

The parent post is an illustration of the point of the original article, that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it and forget the truth.

Yeah, I noticed that about your post.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Ed Avis]

Part of being a child is being told what to do. Probably as a consequence of this, children tend to be quite illiberal. Their model of the world seems to be based on authority figures who decide what 'should' and 'should not' happen. Media aimed at children or teenagers seems to reinforce this - a children's news programme will tend to lead with a story like 'Activity X is bad because Y. Should it be banned?'. This is the main angle on many opinion polls of younger people; should something or other be forbidden. It's not until adulthood, and getting more freedom for yourself, you realize how important it is to protect the freedom of others.

Re:2nd Amendment _ OT

[Anonymous Coward]

The first "limiting" gun law in the US (ratified in Texas of all places)was to limit ownership of "repeaters" because the standing army was not so equiped. The language of that law stated that the populous was limited in the type of weapons to what the army was equipped with.

Now the left is trying to limit ALL gun ownership, when it seems to me that the intent of the original amendment was to enable the populous to defend herself against a tyrannical government. The scary part is even the moderate right and centrists are for limiting weapons in the hands of the common folk.

Now the US government confiscates ~50% of your income, impinges on the exersize of travel within it's borders (witness the profiling and cataloguing done at airports, OK for non-citizens but illegal for citizens), doesn't regulate it's borders, and generally extends it's "rights and protections" to non-citizens. Please no anti-IRS propaganda about the definitions of "citizen" and "citizenship" here.

How did we get so far off course? Simple...in a series of goodwill but simpleminded gestures we basically gave away and are giving away our most basic of rights. We don't demand fair and accurate reporting from our news media (evidenced in CNN's constant referral to "Mr. Bush" and "President Clinton"). We charge people under laws that, for the most part, are preemptory or "thought crimes" (the DUI laws, nobody's rights are infringed there just is the POSSIBLITY that they will be). Those are just a few examples, I'm sure you can figure out some more.

Don't worry about Orwell's "1984"...we live in Huxley's "Brave New World".

And I'll even raise you one...

[Kjella]

this will get you a third answer:
should the government be able to restrict internet contents for obscene material?

Asking if they should have the power is different from using the power. "Should the government have the power to outlaw [x]?" is a different question than "Should the government outlaw [x]?" and it is certainly different than "Can the government outlaw [x]?" which is asking for the current state.

That could certainly also be reported as "X% of students feel government can strict obscene material on the internet." using "can" in the "I think this is an acceptable power for the government to have" sense.

Kjella

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Archvillain]

You didn't really read my post, did you?

I did. You gave no indication that you had no need of homeschooling networks and support systems to give your kids wider social interaction while most kids are off limits at school.

Ignoring the stupider barbs, your added info makes it sound like you're far from the surefire disaster of many homeschoolers, and perhaps a little likely to do well than your initial post suggested (though it also makes you sound blaise about some real problems; "It'll never happen to me" sort of thing, but that's your and your kid's business, not mine.)

No, none of the homeschooled people I know were based on principles of faith, it was parental dissatisfaction with public schools. All of them seem worse off. There will always be exceptions, and I genuinely hope your kids do well (it sounds like they're better off than most).

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

given that no other living creature i'm aware of will 'eat' its own species tells me something. Look no further then mad cow disease to get an idea of why this might be a bad idea.

That is definitely not a given. Many, many, many animals eat their own kind. Sharks, insects, frogs, snakes, wolves, weasels, birds, etc. all eat their own. The prion issue as demonstrated by mad cow disease is a real concern. I'm sure that proper cooking can degrade them far enough to be safe, but I'm not sure what that cooking would entail. Eating any animal after it has died of natural causes is a little iffy, so there would really need to be either very careful food preparation, or a great deal of selectivity when selecting who is used for meat. These are, however, just health risks, and in a culture that eats undercooked beef on a regular basis and has no legal problems with fu-go, I think the risks assessment should be in the hands of the diner.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Its almost like poor = stupid. And I'm not convinced that being poor causes stupidity

I think their are two issues; ignorance and stupidity. These are often mistaken for one another. An ignorant person can seem very stupid or foolish, but they can be acting on the best information they have. The amount of misinformation that can be assimilated by an intelligent person is astounding. The poor quality of education delivered in some schools can ruin a person for life.

The 'jesus is god' teacher should be fired if he's working for a public school. Thats his personal belief and he shouldn't be trying to force it onto others' children.

Heh, I take it you did not go to public school. They did not even fire the teacher who was regularly drunk and assaulted one of the girls. (Some classmates of mine busted is nose though.)

I'm not sure why you'd want to legalize cannibalism (or even what it really has to do with this topic). Most people don't want to be someone else's lunch so killing them for that is denying them their rights.

Cannibalism was a tangent used to provide an extreme example of how a teacher grades on their opinions, not on the assignment. I never mentioned anything about repealing the murder laws. The eating of human flesh, however, is a taboo and is illegal even with the consent of all parties. Why is that? Who exactly is getting hurt? This is a religious practice in some parts of the world, and was one in several more before being exterminated by another prominent, violent religion that I won't bother to name.

You calling me a kid then??

[The MESMERIC]

/me still clueless :)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[nine-times]

You can't teach students to be good citizens. You can't make a "functional citizen" by giving a few classes on civics and basic math.

Well, you certainly can't make a "functional citizen" by *failing* to teach them civics and basic math. And here is the problem-- everyone wants to jump ahead and teach their kids the "high" ideas of Kant, Plato, and Marx without first teaching them civics and basic math. You get a bunch of illiterate kids hearing lectures on "the forms" and "spacial intuition" and "capitalist pigs", and guess what, they don't understand it.

If you read my post, I am *not* saying anything like, "Great works of literature should be restricted, for only the elite should read them." I'm saying, get your priorities straight and understand that education is a process, and you need to walk before you can run. Teach kids to read (yes, all kids) *before* you wax poetic about "the joys of reading" and "the enlightening nature of great literature".

If you teach kids about "the joy of reading" and they can't read, they'll never understand it. However, if you teach kids how to read and don't quite get around to hearing the "joy of reading" lecture, well, they might discover the joy of reading for themselves anyway. Hey, you know what, they might even *read* about it on their own.

P.S.- You might want to tone down on the racism in your post script. Not all black people are poor, and not all poor black people are drug-pushers. The statement "This applies to all kids, even young black..."-- well it seems to imply it's somehow profound that black people can benefit from education. As though that's surprising. As though you assume they shouldn't. It's a terrible thing to say.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Just Some Guy]

I wasn't angry, just incredulous that they were replacing the birth-of-Jesus standard already commonly used with another birth-of-Jesus standard called the "Common Era".

The "old way" explicitly said, "hey, Buddhist, this is the 2005th year after Jesus birth." The new way says "hey, Hindu, this is the 2005th year of the friendly world-standard numbering scheme based on the birth of the Christian leader." I fail to see how the latter is less offensive to those that "Common Era" was designed not to offend. :-)

That, or perhaps the birth of Stallman (unlike the Christian story, whereby the saviour was born TO a virgin, in the GNU story, the saviour was born to STAY a virgin - see below)

<Larry The Cable Guy>I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.</Larry The Cable Guy>

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[glamslam]

You're forgetting that Iraq was an ally pretty much until 1991. Of course we knew he had weapons programs--we helped him get them. Random link: http://www.counterpunch.org/blum0820.html

Your points are so 1984--"We are at war with Iraq--We've always been at war with Iraq."

Its nice that you drink the kool-aid and think this is about protecting the freedom's and liberties of others. Interestingly, we are very choosy about who's freedoms we protect. Could there be other interests?

The worst part of this survey

[maxconfus]

...is that people had to pay for this info when all they had to do was tune into Jay Leno People Say The Funniest Things bit. :~(

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[DigiShaman]

Captialism works best with an uneducated population.
How, please explain?
Capitalism is a two-way street that involves both the selling and buying of goods and services. Thus, capitalism works best WITH educated people. Remember, someone who buys your product also must be educated enough to work and earn the money from another corporation whom him/her works for (or self employeed).

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[danila]

You would have been 100% correct, except that you are 90% wrong. :) You see, the 10+ years that are allocated to compulsory education in most societies is enough to teach the students everything. We should not be discussing whether they need civics in grade 10 - they should know so much more by then that this question itself would appear ridiculous.

If you are saying "at 18 years old kids should know basic math and be able to read the labels in the supermarket" (exaggerating), we have already lost. And the capitalist opressors have won.

People are capable of discovering the joy of reading. It just so happens that the society sometimes prevents in through a variety of ways. The most obvious one being, of course, television. It's hard work to grow and develop yourself, it's not something that just "might" happen. And without some help from the society most people never get to it.

P.S. It was intentionally phrased that way. The point is that even those people, who are so often considered "evil", "uneducable" and "hopeless" and who are condemned to poverty, illiteracy and disproportionally harsh prison sentences, can "see the light" and become good citizens, purely through the magic of good education.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[truesaer]

Then you have the freedom to buy your own presses, publish on your own paper, and distribute you literature off of school grounds. Did your advertisers pay you enough to purchases your own presses? If they didn't, then you were really supported by the school.

OTOH, if they did, then you should have done as I suggested. You would find that the principal couldn't have stopped the activity in this instance.

Sorry, but you're completely wrong. What did you think I meant when I said advertising supported? The only funds we needed were to print the paper, and that was done by a local newspaper. Furthermore, the distinction of on or off school grounds is irrelevant. If I want to distribute religious literature before or after classes this is allowed. They can't stop it. In fact we had a little group of those "apocalypse is coming" crazies who would lecture and leaflet outside school every day (they were students).

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Minna Kirai]

Section 1 of the the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Nothing you quoted there contradicts me in anyway. No state shall abridge those protections... the protection is specifically that "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech"... therefore states cannot make a law allowing Congress to abridge freedom of speech. But the state can still do so on its own, because the Constitution has no protection against it.

Note that in the Bill of Rights, only 1 of the 10 amendments applies to national, state, and local governments equally: the right to bear arms cannot be infringed by anyone. All the other rights are protected solely from infringement by the federal Congres.

Note further that most states of the USA provide their own guarantee of freedom of the press, but this is not "the First Amendement". In New York, for example, it's the eigth amendment.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Kupek]

Hmmm, that's not quite the right interpretation. The crux of the decision was disrupting the school day. The same rules apply to school sponsored papers and non-school sponsored papers. I don't think the funding of the paper ever factored into it.

The lesson here is that the rules change in a school, until the Supreme Court decides otherwise (which I think is doubtful).

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[truesaer]

If your paper does not belong to the highschool, then what is the principal doing reading it before it is posted?

Anyway, if you already have the articles, you can always publish it independently, previous talk to the sponsors.

That is not a free speech issue, it's just someone using the power they have.

Let me answer these one by one. 1) Because you'd be suspended otherwise. 2) You could, but you would be suspended. 3) Of course its a free speech issue, if you're being punished for exercising your free speech by the government it obviously isn't free!

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank You, for this usefull information.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Minna Kirai]

Oh wait Congress sends federal funds to local schools.

In the event that the administrator is acting as an agent of Congress, then the instructions Congress can give him are indeed limited by the first amendment. However, the specific comment to which I was responding was: "Once you talk government, you talk first amendment", and it is emphatically false.

The first amendment ONLY applies to the federal government. There are other levels of government that are completely immune to it.

In your view, the police department could walk in to the local newspaper

No. In my view, the police department is a function of state government, and the state constitution provides it's own promise of freedom of speech completely separate from the first amendment of the national constitution.

Indeed, the fact that each state independently created it's own Freedom of Speech right proves that I'm correct: because if the national Constitution's Bill of Rights applied to all levels of government, there would've been no need for the states to provide a Bill of Rights as well! It'd have been redundant.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[nine-times]

If you are saying "at 18 years old kids should know basic math and be able to read the labels in the supermarket" (exaggerating), we have already lost.

The fact that it needs to be said, I agree, is depressing. However, kids *do* graduate from high school every year who don't understand how to do basic arithmetic, can barely read street signs, can't balance a check-book, don't know how to write a resume, can't speak proper English, don't know how to fill out a basic application, don't really have any understanding of the laws they are expected to follow, can't find the US on a map, and generally don't know what society expects of them. And it's not just occasional. It's a systemic problem that continues to fail an unacceptable portion of kids graduating from public schools.

So if you say, we've already lost, then we've already lost. Now, how do we get back in the game? I say, get back to focussing on those sorts of *functional* skills and understandings first. If it takes 10+ years for a given kid to learn that much, then that's what the kid should learn during those 10+ years. However, I think we'll find that focussing on those functional skills will create more functional students earlier, thereby letting us spend a greater portion of the 10+ years on "high" ideas.

So just because the immediate focus is on functional skills does not mean that the eventual aim of "enlightenment" won't be reached.

Besides, contrary to popular belief, you cannot *force* enlightenment on people. You can expose them to ideas, talk to them, and try to show them other ways, but curiosity and willingness to learn are not teachable. That moment where the words you're saying become an internal idea that your students understand is *beyond your control*.

P.S. It was intentionally phrased that way.

I know that, but your post seemed to assume that I was being elitist and racist, and simultaneously condescend to poor people and black people. I understand the condescension was meant to be sarcastic, but none the less, it was *you* who was bringing condescension into this, and not me.

Re:U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either..

[4of12]

Does it count when they've *all* been left behind?

Excuse me, but I find it easier to Lead when, like, everyone falls in behind me. Doh!

Besides, what kind of messages does that send to our troops and to our enemies, to question my Leadership?

Re:I blame political correctness.

[wcrowe]

Who is preventing unpopular opinions from being expressed?

The article, and my post, was referring to high school students. In school the teachers and principals frequently come down on the kids for expressing opinions.

The parents do the same. Some want the Bible removed from the library because they are atheists. Others don't want their child to study Mark Twain because his books have the word "nigger" in them. Still more don't want the kids reading Of Mice and Men or other novels because they are too "graphic".

Growing up in this kind of environment, the kids have a tendency to think that free speech is somehow wrong, and that ideas in and of themselves are dangerous.

BTW, I apologize to everyone for misspelling "blame" in my original post.

Why does Slashdot care about the First Amendment?

[JavaLord]

and not the second one?

Re:in school the 1st means nothing

[Kiryat Malachi]

Gee, that's funny. I have no idea what your position on the issue was, and what your teachers was, because you cannot seem to communicate clearly. However, it seems to me like you argued that right limits of a function don't exist at infinity, because infinity is the biggest number possible. However, infinity can be bigger than infinity. You're wrong.

Einstein could communicate clearly. I'm an engineer, focused in math - this doesn't excuse me from trying to write proper English. In fact, it makes it more necessary; no one cares if their server in a cheap diner can speak proper English. But if you ever want anyone to actually give credence to the research you do, being able to communicate that research clearly, properly, is a given.

So yes, if Einstein couldn't *write* properly, couldn't do math, and was fucking dumb enough to mouth off to a teacher when he was wrong... I would, in fact, make fun of him.

Links to the full study

[shades6666]

For those who are interested, here are links to the full results for the study and the Executive Summary and Key Findings

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[m50d]

If you actually paid attention, you would know Saddam listened to the warnings. He let the weapons inspectors in. Hans Blix was there looking for the WMD the US claimed was there. Then the US told him to get out and invaded anyway.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[m50d]

They're not a surprise to those who remember what you're saying. But too many people don't, and need to be reminded. I'm just emerging from the state schooling system. There is no way any kids of mine are going to school without major reform happening. (I know, typical slashdotter and all, the chance of this actually mattering is very small, but hey)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[orasio]

1) If you make your own newsletter, in your own time, with your own resources, paid by your advertisers, you are an independent publisher, it's ludicrous that some principal at some highschool requires to read it and pre-censor it, just because you go to that school, or distribute it to people that go there.

Of course, if you were using school resources to publish it, he would have the right to do so, but there was some talk about it having its own ads.

2) I don't see how.
3) you can be punished because of exercising free speech, and it can still fail to be a free speech issue. For example if you use your free speech to confess something punishable, or to incite people to commit some crime.
In this case, _if_ the newsletter is representative of the school, and controlled by the school, for example, the school would be just excercising editorial rights. No free speech issue. Go make your own pamphlet, kids.

Re:I blame political correctness.

[Big_Al_B]

The article, and my post, was referring to high school students.

In the '80s, when I was in HS, the term politically correct didn't exist and wouldn't for some time. But I remember several discussions in several classes regarding the First Amendment rights of students. The upshot was that the Bill of Rights didn't entirely apply to students on school grounds, especially during school hours. Our school newspaper was subject to administration review/approval, we could not use profanity in school, and we could not wear t-shirts with alcohol company logos or profanity on them. Our lockers and belongings could be searched and/or siezed.

Again, "politically correct" wasn't yet defined and we were no more free than today's students to express certain ideas (i.e. a classmate was suspended for presenting a paper titled "Acid is Good For You").

Our school rules regarding student rights/privledges were actually very liberal compared to most other public and private schools at that time and we were well aware of that.

The parents do the same. Some want the Bible removed from the library because they are atheists.

Bad parenting does indeed screw kids up. But that's not an issue of political correctness or not, that's an issue of bad parenting.

BTW, I think your example is a straw man. If, in fact, there are atheists who believe in censorship, then they're as foolish as any theist who believes in censorship. Movements to ban your literary examples (Twain et al.) significantly pre-date the rise of "political correctness" in our country. On a wider scale, book-banning has been many a fool's errand since before public libraries came to exist.

BTW, I apologize to everyone for misspelling "blame" in my original post.

Kno swet. ;^)

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[danila]

I disagree with the premise that some kids may need 10 years to learn 2+2. All the information I have suggests that in 10 years anyone (except a small percentage of kids with various "complications") can learn trigonometry, calculus and at least the basics of differential and integral calculus. And at least the basic of statistics and probability theory. And by "learn" I mean understand and be able to use, not just memorize and train to mindlessly solve similar tasks. The same level of performance can be achieved in all other important fields as well. All this doesn't even require expensive equipment and super-teachers. The available assets would do just fine, if only someone sane could set some basic rules in stone (i.e. "not lying", "not training for the tests", "finding out whether kids actually understand stuff", etc.). This isn't rocket science, any book on pedagogy has all the necessary techniques and approaches.

So if we decide to make sure that the kids "at least know functional skills", we are missing the point. Yes, we can fix the education system to make sure they learn at least that, but it won't place us closer to the goal - having schools produce "good" citizens. This problem is common - people presume that education is already too complex and we need to simplify it. The reality is that we just need to honestly and openly fix the education system, stop the lies and make it work honestly again. That's the real problem, not that we didn't teach enough basic math in grade 1 (I mean, parents would sometimes do the homework for grade 1 pupils so that they can get better grades).

"curiosity and willingness to learn are not teachable" - they are. You just create the right environment, add a good teacher, remove/neutralise those few students that want to disturb (this becomes unnecessary at later stages) and it works with all, but the most complicated kids (i.e. mentally unstable, cretins, drug addicts, horribly abused kids, etc.).

Re P.S. Sorry if that appeared that way. It was actually inspired by the article in Harper related to the topic that I read recently, it wasn't really targeted at your post. But if I look at your post more closely, it's actually clear that you claim schools should not be focused on being "ground for enlightenment" and should teach functional skills first. It isn't about condescension, it's also about elitism (i.e. "don't think that some people are 'inferiour' in that they don't need advanced education"). My point was that even the poster kids for your position (i.e. totally uneducated minorities who do not appear to be in need of some Plato or Didrot, but 2+2=? and "do not eat this" skills) would in reality benefit immensely from "enlightment". And, as the linked article neatly illustrates, enlightment would lead to personal development that would lead to fixing their lifes, getting professional education and stuff.

The 1977 Soviet Constitution said it best - "The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all".

"sponsored speech"

[Wolf nipple chips]

This discussion is all about freedom of speech and the influence a government can have on what is to be published in journals ; but I feel the matter of "sponsored speech" -as you've put it- is actually quite related to this problem and often overlooked.

I'm French (this isn't flambait or offtopic) and the recent rise of free (as in beer) daily journals in our capital city has a few of us worried about the quality of information that these provide.

One reason for worry is the accuracy of the information published: such 'journals' are run with minimal staffs that could never do fieldwork, historical perspective or even simple fact-checking, even if they somehow wanted to. But the real trouble is that a journal is only as free as it is independent of financial pressure: if your financial survival depends on ad revenue, you are subject to implicit -or explicit- pressure not to alienate those revenue by pushing a story that would hurt the company behind it too badly.

If you think that's just being paranoid, then hear this: the two gratis daily journals were the only one that did not cover the South-East Asian tsunami. You read that right: not one word about that human tragedy in any of those journals (one of which is actually the 4th newspaper in our country, by the number of people reading it). Why so, you wonder? Because the journals were closed between Christmas and New Year's eve due to lack of advertisement during that period.

This last bit of info comes from a paying journal that is the exact opposite of the gratis ones: it is called "Le Canard enchaîné" (useless website, unfortunately http://www.canardenchaine.com/) and is a satirist weekly national paper purely funded by its sales. It does not contain a single advertisement and frequently pushes information not published elsewhere. It's usually quite worth a read, and I've long been wondering whether it is truly a French exception or if there are other countries with nationwide truly independent newspapers...

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[GrodinTierce]

witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."

Without putting forward my personal views, I'd like to point out that Israel routinely demolishes the houses of those it deems "terrorists" (I use quotation marks in the absence of a clear, accepted definition for terrorism). Would you agree that this is effectively state terrorism?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[nine-times]

I disagree with the premise that some kids may need 10 years to learn 2+2.

I said 'if'. IF, by some disaster, they need 10 years to learn 2+2, they should be sure to learn 2+2 before you try to teach them calculus. I agree that they shouldn't need so long.

So if we decide to make sure that the kids "at least know functional skills", we are missing the point. Yes, we can fix the education system to make sure they learn at least that, but it won't place us closer to the goal - having schools produce "good" citizens.

Well, we'll be closer to the goal of having *functional* citizens. If by "good", you mean well-behaved, the key to that is good conditioning. No matter what you do, school is providing kids with "conditioning". The question is, conditioning towards what? If we want "well-behaved" citizens, then we'd need conditioning towards being well-behaved, which we DO NOT have now.

If, on the other hand, by "good" you mean enlightened, it is impossible to control. What history/experience teaches us is, you can give people all the freedom and resources possible, and they may not become enlightened. Likewise, you can keep people in the most slavish conditions, and you will not be able to keep them from becoming enlightened.

... and it works with all, but the most complicated kids (i.e. mentally unstable, cretins, drug addicts, horribly abused kids, etc.).

Who's the elitist now? Don't you want to help these people too?

...it's also about elitism (i.e. "don't think that some people are 'inferiour' in that they don't need advanced education"). My point was that even the poster kids for your position (i.e. totally uneducated minorities who do not appear to be in need of some Plato or Didrot, but 2+2=? and "do not eat this" skills) would in reality benefit immensely from "enlightment".

It's ridiculous that you get that from any of my posts. I'm not claiming that any social/political group should be segregated and given a lesser education. I am saying that all groups should work FIRST towards functional skills, and once the kids are functional, THEN you move on. One would hope that ALL kids move beyond being merely functional.

However, ultimately, how far "beyond" each child goes does have something to do with the potential and desire of each child. This is not an issue race or political or economic grouping, nor is this an issue of the way things "should" be. No matter what you do, some people will excel where others flounder. However much we want to equalize opportunity, we shouldn't try to equalize achievement.

So what I'm suggesting isn't that we teach "poor people" only basic functional skills. I'm suggesting we try to make sure your "mentally unstable, cretins, drug addicts, horribly abused kids, etc." are helped to be AT LEAST functional.

The 1977 Soviet Constitution said it best - "The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all".

Ah, yes, the Soviets. The models of efficient society and humanitarianism.

How familiar are you with the public school systems in the US anyhow? I mean, you're not exactly from the US, are you?

BitTorrent - The Power of Nightmares

[loki goes rawr]

Download the torrent here. View torrent stats here.

Quoting BBC:

This series shows dramatically how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

The rise of the Politics of Fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neoconservative movement that dominates Washington. Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together. The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay. But in an age of growing disillusion with politics, the neoconservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision. They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see. The Islamists were faced by the refusal of the masses to follow their dream and began to turn to terror to force the people to 'see the truth'.

The series are encoded in xvid placed in an .ogm (opposed to .avi) container. (Defiler Pack)

Funny how this article reminded me exactly of the documentary.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[danila]

I think I now see the fault in your strategy. You say kids should get basic skills required to be functional first, but you ignore that the education systems is actually trying to do that. Ignoring for the moment the subject of the article - their familiarity with the First Amendment - we can safely say that all kids are taught addition and multiplication quite well in advance, as well as reading and lots of other basic skills. Still, if you look at the graduates, it is not uncommon to find people who can't multiply 17 by 10 without a calculator as well as people who can read a 1 page of text and not understand a single sentence of it.

Your suggestion "let's teach the basic skills first" ignores the fact that basic skills ARE taught first and that the schools are failing at that. Think for a second - how would we proceed with your suggestion of ensuring that kids are functional. We probably need to fix whatever it is that prevents those basic math lessons from working.

But I am convinced that once you find out what the problems are and fix them (the problems are rather obvious and it's not like nobody wrote about them 20+ years ago), we would get the "good" education system back, where any subject can be taught effectively, meaning that we can have our enlightened kids again.

Now it would be all fine and dandy if our goal is to "fix the system", because once we fix it, it works. But if our first goal is to make sure only that functional skills are taught well, then we risk rebuilding a 100-year old education system that could teach everyone basic skills instead of fixing the relatively modern one that can teach everyone everything.

Any reform is a very complex task, so you can't easily switch between goals on a whim. If we decide we need functional skills, everyone would tend to ignore other goals.

Ah, yes, the Soviets. The models of efficient society and humanitarianism.
Well, they deserve some credit for trying. Nobody forced them to add this line to the constitution and it was really backed up with real actions and resources. Not to mention that the education system in the Soviet Union was indeed very efficient and very humanistic.

How familiar are you with the public school systems in the US anyhow? I mean, you're not exactly from the US, are you?
No, thanks luck, I am not. But I am very familiar with the problems of the US public school system, because most of them are not specific to the US.

My Problem with Air America Radio

[Anarcho-Goth]

My main problem with Air America radio is they can't seem to go two minutes without talking about how liberal they are.

What I'd really like to see is a political talk radio show where the host does not use the terms "liberal" or "conservative" or left, right or generalizes about "Democrats vs Republicans" and any caller who uses such terms is given a BZZZZZ and disconnected.

Another problem I have with Air America is that Al Franken is a putz, and he just isn't that funny, at least not on his talk show.

Randi Rhodes is OK, but even she tends to divide everything into Democrats and Republicans, to the point of contradicting a caller who described Code Pink as non-partisan. I don't know of the rest of the country, but where I live the front of the Code Pink T-Shirts say "What Would Emma Do" and a picture of Emma Goldman. She isn't exactly an icon for the Democratic party.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anarcho-Goth]

Federal laws supercede state laws, and state laws in turn supercede local/municipal laws.

City says that you need a permit to freely assemble.

People freely assemble anyway.

Police indiscriminately, and liberally use peperspray against people assembled people.

People successful sue the city for violation of constitutional rights.

maybe that's why there is such a big push for "tort reform."

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anarcho-Goth]

in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism"

Not to be a dictionary fascist, but I think a better term would be "collective punishment."

It doesn't officially happen to US Citizens by US Law Enforcement (I imagine there are unofficial uses of it. But I digress.) It is banned by the geneva conention, but it is repeatedly used by a country that receives a lot of US Foreign aid that I'm thinking of in particular.

I think it was used in most Latin American countries at one time or another in the past 20-30 years too.

I remember when I was in grade school, seeing protestors protesting President Carter and the Shaw, and seeing them being arrested. I thought that it must be illegal to boo the president. One time in grade school there was an assembly and the principal came up to speak, and a bunch of people booed, maybe half the school. People got in trouble for that. I'm not sure if this incident happened before my seeing the protestors arrested on the TV or after, but I connected the two.

Re:No one died for a flag

[trmcdougle]

As to "No-one, and I repeat NO-ONE has ever died for a flag."

I would say that that is incorrect, until armies stopped carrying their battle standards (usually flags, one of which would normally be the nations flag) into battle, they often died to protect or capture those flags.

It could however be argued that they were dying for the pride of their regiment, or perhaps if they were intellectual for the morale effects, but I suspect at least some would have quantified it as "for the flag".

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[nine-times]

Your suggestion "let's teach the basic skills first" ignores the fact that basic skills ARE taught first and that the schools are failing at that. Think for a second - how would we proceed with your suggestion of ensuring that kids are functional. We probably need to fix whatever it is that prevents those basic math lessons from working.

It seems you haven't found the "fault in my strategy", but have found the exact point I was trying to make in the first place. Passing kids along and trying to teach them calculus when you've failed to teach them addition isn't going to work.

Now it would be all fine and dandy if our goal is to "fix the system", because once we fix it, it works. But if our first goal is to make sure only that functional skills are taught well, then we risk rebuilding a 100-year old education system that could teach everyone basic skills instead of fixing the relatively modern one that can teach everyone everything.

And what of the idea of fixing the current modern system so that "functional skills are taught well" BEFORE going on to "teach everyone everything"? In US public schools, basic/functional skills are taught... sort of. They aren't taught well, and sometimes they're outright *skipped*, and this is based on the idea that the basic ideas aren't as powerful as complex ideas, and so kids don't really need to learn basic ideas so long as they know the complex ideas. The problem is, you can't understand complex ideas BEFORE you understand the basic ideas they're built from.

...meaning that we can have our enlightened kids again.

When, exactly, did we have "enlightened kids" the first time?

Well, they deserve some credit for trying.

...and perhaps some condemnation for failing? I mean, if they failed, then surely there must have been something sub-par about their methods, no? If their education system was so terrific, and you suggest a good education system will yield good, enlightened citizens, then why wasn't *everything* hunky-dory?

But I am very familiar with the problems of the US public school system, because most of them are not specific to the US.

Are you sure about that? I mean, I agree that there are some universal elements to the challenge of creating a "good education system", but how do you know what "most" of the problems are the same as those you're familiar with, without being familiar with the US public education system?

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[beakburke]

What does kool-aid have to do with my previous post? (Just for the record though, lemon ice is the best). I do not see any "1984" in my post. I do not deny that the US helped Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran (charter memeber of the Axis of Evil as well). Of course the goal with the Iraq Iran war (for the US) was to prevent the more powerful (and Soviet aided) Iran from gaining a major victory and achieving regional dominance. It was more a case of "the enemy of my enemy" that a real positive alliance.

Of course there are other interests involved, I'm certainly not suggesting that the US is wholly motived by unselfish concern for the oppressed everywhere. So why Iraq and not some other country? Partly it's beacause even the US has limits to its military resources. How many oppressive dictators are there in this world? In the case of Iraq, it appears to be a combination the prolonged nature of the problem (12 years of UN resolutions and fights over weapons inspectors), percieved threat, and level of repression. And that just covers the direct effects of any action or inaction. So I don't at all deny self interest. Just like the reason for the US civil war wasn't only about freeing slaves. Most events of this nature has a multitude of causes. Just because a war isn't only (or even primarily) about protecting freedom doesnt' mean that freedom isn't one of the objectives.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[dvdeug]

Of course the goal with the Iraq Iran war (for the US) was to prevent the more powerful (and Soviet aided) Iran from gaining a major victory and achieving regional dominance.

"Soviet aided"? The no. 1 seller of weapons to Iraq was the Soviet Union, with China coming in second.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[j_snare]

I'd be interested to know what it is you mean. I'm not sure where I alluded to the first amendment, and I'm pretty sure I know more about it than most high school students by now.

What I was talking about was the cease-fire and treaty that Saddam signed. Oh, I see, you must be saying that the name of the treaty was "First Amendment." My, what a curious name. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[j_snare]

And if you had paid attention, you would know that Saddam had done the same move 15 other times. He's kicked the inspectors out, then let them back in, then kicked them out, then let them back in. That's the problem with the boy who cried wolf. Eventually no one believes you anymore and ignores your plea.

Any idea how long it takes to start the inspection path again? Do you think that maybe Saddam thought that he could continue delaying the inspector's work by kicking them out and then letting them back in after dragging his feet for a while so that inspectors couldn't get the work done, and he could just delay the UN time and time again?

The problem is that no one knows what he's hiding when he kicks them out. A decent explanation, true or not, is that he's hiding WMD. Now, we're pretty sure that's not true NOW, but I'd like to think that we could agree that the general consensus by the people involved at the time (not just Bush, mind you) was that he was hiding them.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[TeraCo]

Oh, I meant 'kids who just accept what the government spoon feeds them... NEXT ON FOX!!"

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Money for Nothin']

maybe that's why there is such a big push for "tort reform."

So the Republicans running our government can abuse our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms? Wouldn't surprise me one bit. >:(

I'm inclined to think it's more a matter of piles of donations from industries bearing the brunt of the legal industry, e.g. the gun industry, the insurance industry, etc., but the social conservatives (read: religious right) are probably a considerable influence there as well...

The importance of spelling and grammar

[Tau Zero]

As a teacher, one of your jobs is to set a good example.

If the kids don't see anyone who writes with proper spelling and grammar, how are they going to learn it?

Re:The importance of spelling and grammar

[BigDogCH]

And would I be setting a good example by acting like the typical slashdot poster? There are times to worry about spelling and grammar, and there are times to worry about content. And, there are times to worry about both. Am I perfect, no. I am a slashdot user who doesn't know everything, but I am able to teach people where to find the information they seek. I do not have perfect spelling, why is that so hard for people to grasp? But, I can show you how to find the correct spelling.

Teachers are no different than anyone else, so isn't it a bit unfair to expect more from them than from ourselves? Kids mirror their peers and family and teachers, yet teachers are required to know everything about everything. This is exactly the problem with our society. I don't have to be a good role model, thats what the teachers are paid for.

A good example of how weak the brains are in our society is that every time I come to slashdot for a reasonably intelligent conversation, it lands up being about grammar. To be honest, I don't give a hoot whether my students learn which words are verbs and how to spell hypocritical. Once they learn the value of education, those things will come. Instead I push them to learn the value of being an educated member of society. Would my students really open up to me if I critiqued every one of their thoughts with grammar rules and spelling mistakes? No.

Re:The importance of spelling and grammar

[Tau Zero]

There are times to worry about spelling and grammar, and there are times to worry about content.

It's ALWAYS time to worry about logical fallacies, like the false dichotomy you just used. Spelling and grammar are there to make certain that the content is accessible, rather than being confused or obscured by errors and ambiguities.

I am able to teach people where to find the information they seek.

If you can't spell a word, you're not going to be able to look it up.

Oar should eye say, if ewe cant spell a word, ewer knot going two bee able too look it up.

Teachers are no different than anyone else, so isn't it a bit unfair to expect more from them than from ourselves? Kids mirror their peers and family and teachers, yet teachers are required to know everything about everything.

Spelling, grammar and punctuation are basic. You may not hold yourself to the standards you expect of a teacher, but I do. I wouldn't expect an elementary school teacher to know the math and science I do, but if they are teaching spelling and grammar they should be able to do it the right way every time, in class and out. I expect everyone, even the gym teacher, to get things right on report cards and such. Call it a religious duty, the right writing rite.

... every time I come to slashdot for a reasonably intelligent conversation, it lands up being about grammar.

I found your sub-thread when it popped up in metamod and I went to look.

If you don't want things to devolve to discussions about spelling and grammar, hold yourself to a high enough standard that nobody raises the issue with you. And stop making excuses for sloppiness among people who ought to be setting the standards!

Re:The importance of spelling and grammar

[BigDogCH]

Firstly, thanks for actually putting something with thought behind it down, rather than just being a grammar nazi. I don't mind discussing this topic, as long as it is with someone who is capable of original thought. Thanks. What frustrates me is when someone says my arguement is invalid because I missed an apostrophe.

It's ALWAYS time to worry about logical fallacies, like the false dichotomy you just used. Spelling and grammar are there to make certain that the content is accessible, rather than being confused or obscured by errors and ambiguities.

Firstly, I teach upper secondary education classes (grades 11, 12, +). I do not teach elementary education. This is the key. By the time these students get to me, they already couldn't care less about grammar, spelling, or anything other than drugs and sex. There is absoluetly no way I can show them the correct way to use an apostrophe without first convincing them that they want to learn. My job is to show them that learning is fun and interesting, and eventually they discover this and will have enough pride in their work to want to use the correct grammar/spelling. There are times to worry about these things, and times not to. A message board is a place to exchange thoughts and ideas for fun and self growth. Obviously you need average to above average language skills to discuss these things, but you don't need to be perfect.

If you can't spell a word, you're not going to be able to look it up.

I dont mean to offend, but this is the most common excuse that middle schoolers use to defend their poor spelling. They can't look it up because they can't spell it, so how will they ever figure out how to spell it. Poor arguement indeed, and I think upon reflection you would agree.

Spelling, grammar and punctuation are basic. You may not hold yourself to the standards you expect of a teacher, but I do. I wouldn't expect an elementary school teacher to know the math and science I do, but if they are teaching spelling and grammar they should be able to do it the right way every time, in class and out. I expect everyone, even the gym teacher, to get things right on report cards and such. Call it a religious duty, the right writing rite.

I do hold myself to a set of standards, far more strict than most of the parents of my students. But, I do not hold myself to such a strict grammar/spelling standard that I believe my arguements are all false because they have spelling/grammar mistakes in them. That is what the issue is about here. Any arguement I put on slashdot is fine, until I mention that I am a teacher. Then the grammar nazis come out. I am glad though that you have such strict expectations for the education level of teachers. The sad truth is that all aspiring teachers in this country have to pass an exam PPST, which is very easy. With that said, I watched many of my peers struggle on the test, and even have to retake it. Lets just say that over 75% of the elementary teachers out there, do not really understand the math that they are teaching. I tutored them, don't even get me started on my experiance trying to teach future elementary teachers what a fraction is. I do have a theory on why these people choose education, but that is for a different day.

If you don't want things to devolve to discussions about spelling and grammar, hold yourself to a high enough standard that nobody raises the issue with you.

I know this is a weak arguement, but it is not possible. Firstly, depending on what part of the world you are from, there are different standards. Secondly, this is a place to rapidly exchange ideas and opinions, not a term paper. And yes, even your post has flaws in it depending on who reads it. Grantid, your statements are probably perfect according to your standards, but language is a dynamic thing that changes every day. I could quite easily use the contaction ain't in my post, and 20 people would argue that it isn't a word, and teachers shou

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[j_snare]

Ahh, thanks. That is kinda funny though, considering I don't even have Fox (Dropped the waste of time that is known as "TV" a long time ago) I generally have to get my news through blatantly liberal news sites.

So, in your opinion, which is based on the complete truth, what DO you think ended the first Iraq war? Politically speaking, that is.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[m50d]

Then make that the last time. But he hadn't kicked them out again. The US had given him an ultimatum: let the inspectors back in or else. So he let them back in. And then, for no apparent reason, the US invaded a couple of weeks later. If he had kicked them out again and then the US had invaded, that would have made sense, but as long as he was co-operating there was no excuse for an invasion.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[j_snare]

That is true, he was letting them in again right as the US told the inspectors to get out, they were being let in again. And yes, I actually do agree that they really should have let the inspectors do their job and avoided the whole thing.

I realize that we should have just told him "Okay, we let them try this one more time, but if you kick them out again before their job is done, we're coming in, regardless." You can't just continually say "If he lets the inspectors back in, you don't have an excuse for invasion," because he can continually only be letting inspectors in to the country, not allowing them to see anything.

However, as much as I would have liked them to wait, I also realize that we may not have been getting the whole picture. I'm really not sure if we had already told Saddam that we weren't giving him any more chances. I do suspect that we might have. And we had to make sure that doing what Saddam was doing as far as wasting inspector's time was known to be not acceptable. Perhaps there was good reason to believe that Saddam was close enough so that he could make it to nuclear before the inspectors could get find it. I don't actually know, and unless you were involved, you probably don't actually know either.

I'll admit I voted for Bush (thought it felt like it was a vote between Twiddledee and Twiddledum), but I don't believe it was a cut-and-dry case like they were trying to make it out to be. I also believe we haven't heard the full truth yet. Not from Bush, not from Kerry, and certainly not from CNN or Fox.

not America, but the World Bank

[Anonymous Coward]

the world bank ( or people running it)
are responsible for every war in the 20th century

and yes, america is a part of that,
but so is switzerland, germany .... the list is long, and you can't really assign blame to "countries", as most of the population has 0 control. All the decisions fall on the money guys,
and then they con their (low income) citizens into fighting

heard of made up news (ie clear channel)?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clear channel radio
is loyal to bush,
and they faked news stories
of rallies (as opposed to protests)
in favor of bush going to iraq.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[bbtom]

Perhaps, but in it's defence, the idea came out of interfaith dialogue. It may still cause offence that the calendars are based around the birth of Christ, but this seems to be a relatively simple way of adressing the balance somewhat. I mostly hate political correctness, but this is simply redressing the balance somewhat between the spiritual and the secular.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[doj8]

Probably depends on your state. The folk I know who do it do not feel that way.

While I don't home school (as I don't have kids), I know several who do and I have been involved in locating materials, researching state requirements (and will be providing guest lessons on my areas of knowledge).

In New Hampshire, the requirements are pretty flexible. They do require you tell them you are home schooling (so they know that the student isn't a truant), you give them some idea of what you are teaching (a one page summary is ok) and once a year you have someone whom YOU choose review your material with your kid. This is not a formal process. (This is to make sure the kid is actually learning the material intended to be learned.) That's it.

I haven't known anyone who was told the material was inappropriate, but I think that is probably self-selection from the sort of folk I know who do home schooling. In other words, submitting "we'll read from the Bible - or Koran, etc. - from dawn to dusk" likely would get questioned. So would "we'll commune with nature all day." In other words, there has to be some GENERAL education in the material.

In New Hampshire, at least, a home schooler has full access to all the local school's resources. So, if you need access to a school lab, you can get it. You can also send a home schooled kid to regular school for any portion of the year (like every Wednesday or whatever). You do need to tell the school beforehand so they can include it in their planning.

Other states may be more difficult (or even easier) to deal with. So, YMMV.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[m50d]

I don't know any better than you, but I know that my government (UK) took us to war on some grounds which, at the lower levels at least, were known to be simply untrue. (I think it's incredibly unlikely that the lower levels passed on the intel but not the warnings about its reliability, but that's what Blair claims and in the absence of other evidence we have to give him the benefit of the doubt). Which to my mind implies that the government thought there was no good reason to go to war; otherwise they would have used the real justifications. And I'm lucky enough to have the BBC, which for all its faults does its very best to present the truth as it sees it, and will not shy from criticising the government if it needs to. I certainly think the BBC's version is likely to be closer to the truth than any politician's.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[beakburke]

Just because they sold to Iraq in the 1990s doesn't mean that they didn't sell to Iran in the 1980s.

A grammar is better than a damner

[Tau Zero]

(two points if you can identify the reference in the subject)

Firstly, thanks for actually putting something with thought behind it down, rather than just being a grammar nazi.

I can't be a grammar not-see. All that stuff just leaps out at me.

What frustrates me is when someone says my arguement is invalid because I missed an apostrophe.

I'm sure you do, especially when they're right. ;-) (Seriously, if a missing apostrophe changes the meaning enough to be confusing, there is some merit to the accusation. Written communications are difficult enough when people pay proper attention to clarity; when they let it slip, they can become downright opaque.)

I do hold myself to a set of standards, far more strict than most of the parents of my students.

Maybe you should hold them to a tough standard, whether they care or not. They, or someone, will thank you later.

Example: some time ago I was working on a project involving truck clutches, picking up some work which had been done by others. I had no access to the original workers, and I was confused by repeated references to the "warn condition". Some time later I realized that they meant the "worn" condition, but only after a lot of frustration. I got a lot of grief because a bunch of teachers decided to let someone's grammar errors slide.

This is compounded in a world of electronic knowledge bases. An automated search for "worn clutch" is unlikely to find "warn clutch", because they are so semantically different. Writing with such errors becomes useless because it cannot be indexed correctly.

The sad truth is that all aspiring teachers in this country have to pass an exam PPST, which is very easy. With that said, I watched many of my peers struggle on the test, and even have to retake it.

There's an easy way to solve that. Give them once chance to pass the test before entering ed school, and if they fail they spend a term in remedial classes before they can take it again. (If someone's skills are so weak that they can fail it because they had a bad day, they probably need remediation anyway.)

Firstly, depending on what part of the world you are from, there are different standards. Secondly, this is a place to rapidly exchange ideas and opinions, not a term paper. And yes, even your post has flaws in it depending on who reads it.

Are you labouring under the misconception that regional differences deserve no respect? Sod off, you bugger! ;-)

To me, term-paper rigor means having one's argument airtight, research complete and references done properly. Spelling and grammar require no work beyond getting things right as they come off the fingers; they are basic, not frills, and shouldn't be shorted.

I could point out that you didn't use proper citation on my quotes (I didn't either), and that capitalizing "ALWAYS" is gramatically incorrect.

The citation is implicit in the structure of the forum, and ALL CAPS for emphasis is valid usage according to my in-house style guide. ;-)

Also you only have 1 space between sentences, where most english guides say 2 is the requirement.

Here is a sentence with one space between words.
Here is a sentence with two spaces between words.
Here is a sentence using non-breaking spaces (&nbsp;) to add extra space between words.

They all look the same, because Slashdot edits out the formatting (they did this sometime in the last two years, it used to work decently). I put in the codes to space properly if they'll ever go back to letting people show what they want.

Basically it all comes down to being frustrated with the crowd of arogant idiots that slashdot attracts.

Hammer 'em on their errors (with copious use of hyperlinks to references) and you'll be surprised how often they fold up and disappear. You often get modded up, too.

Re:A grammar is better than a damner

[BigDogCH]

I don't have a lot of time, as I am getting ready for work. You make some excellent points, and your debate skills are very refined. It is nice to debate with someone who has these skills!

Lets just agree to disagree on this one, though I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. I do disagree that one should spend their valuable time proofing their posts for slashdot. My time is too valuable for that.

There's an easy way to solve that. Give them once chance to pass the test before entering ed school, and if they fail they spend a term in remedial classes before they can take it again. (If someone's skills are so weak that they can fail it because they had a bad day, they probably need remediation anyway.)

I would like to comment on this! This is basically already being done. Because our aspiring teachers are so weak in math and science (and probably more, but I only tutored these 2) they do have to review. All elementary education teachers are required to take a class on techniques used to teach elementary mathmatics. But they never get to the techniques, because they spend their entire time trying to make sure that the future teachers actually understand the math themselves. Basically we need to find a way to eliminate the poor prospects. I agree that they take the PPST first. But, I don't think they should get a 2nd chance. Also, it needs to be harder. Put it this way, I had only 1 wrong on the entire 3 hour test, and I wish to this day that I had payed the $15 to see my answers (so I could find out which one it was). Heck, I even passed the spelling and grammar portion with a perfect score!

BTW, I also still loath the grammar nazi. I understand that communication is needed, but even with my unrefined skills you seem to be able to grasp my concepts. Though I am a bit hazed on cough syrup right now, so excuse any errors or mentions of pink pachaderms.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[dvdeug]

They sold to Iraq in the 1980s.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[IndependentVik]

. . . which depraved faction of retards inhabits the majority party of the Congress and the White House.

That line earned you a fan :)