Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & Education
In 24 hours, many of you will be able to vote. So as we come down to the wire, this is really our last chance to talk about the issues. We've already discussed Health Care, the War, and the Economy. Today I'm opening up the floor to discuss education. Perhaps no other issue will matter more in 50 years. Which candidate will make the next generation smarter?
Nuff said. (These issues are a stimulus to trigger a voting response, and have NOTHING to do with policies that will exist post-election.)
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The federal government really isn't the appropriate place to deal with any kind of primary educational policy.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Unless you happen to believe in creationism (like many do in the USA) then this is the trigger to vote for McCain/Palin. If every intelligent person voted, these elections would never be too close to call. Also the nefarious involvement of unscrupulous people doing bad things to win, decreases the predictability of an outcome, when both sides are doing it.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
MAYBE Obama will get rid of NCLB, but I don't see him getting away from the typical left position of supporting the teachers' unions goals and just throwing money at education without real standards. We spend more money - under left and right administrations - per student and don't see the results, which means the overall system is broken.
I don't see him actively supporting homeschooling as well, and we know he's going to be against vouchers.
The biggest problem, however, will NEVER be government involvement. I don't care who is in power, but the ONLY real influence on children's education is PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT. It doesn't matter what teachers, principals, politicians, and everyone else does if a parent doesn't care about how well their kid is doing in school - it's nearly too great a hurdle to overcome.
I think that the only thing that I have ever seen that may do something is a performance-based state-sponsored tuition program (like Louisiana TOPS or Georgia HOPE) which is directly tied to secondary school performance with college tuition on the line - there are a LOT of parents in those states that I know of who pushed their kids to get good grades simply because there was a near-free college tuition at stake (it's what paid for my own tuition at Louisiana Tech).
... belongs in the philosophy class, not science. Science is a set of facts seeking a conclusion to support them- Intelligent Design is a conclusion seeing a set of facts to support it.
In a philosophy or comparative religions class? Absolutely- go nuts! Be sure to include a whole bunch of other religious theory, including Hindu creation myths etc. Would be a fun class.
But as science? ... Do not want.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
It's called investing in our workforce to remain competitive in a global economy. I realize long-term planning isn't the Republican's forte; sorry we see things differently.
How long before we can do the same with Democrats?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
If you are concerned about the education in the United States, voice your concerns to your state and local government. The only thing the federal government has authority over concerning education is the ability to tax you and decide how it will spend that tax money. Looking to solve education issues at the federal level is a farce.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Can we vote for a do over all the choices suck?
Neither candidate will make the next generation smarter. Either one might put policies in place to help the next generation get education, but ultimately learning happens inside the heads of the students.
That said, Obama looks a lot more tuned-in when it comes to educational issues. His keynote address to the American Library Association's conference in Chicago (2005) pretty clearly demonstrates his commitment to education, particularly literacy programs and such.
Whereas McCain is, well, not. Remember that McCain proposed a governmental spending freeze as a remedy for the fiscal crisis? With a few exceptions, such as Defense. Well, education was not on the list of exceptions.
Why should the president, or the government, have a role in "making everyone smarter"? I also don't see how people can be "made smarter" when they are spoon-fed a pre-packaged education and are not driven to learn on their own - something they would be more motivated to do if we moved away from our current nanny-state that lets us get by without being informed about the choices we make.
Speaking of unscrupulous things to win:
It should be known (the media is hiding the fact), that there is a special second polling day for registered republicans. This is to help alleviate lines. This Wednesday is a special extra day o voting only for you.
Don't let the unscrupulous liberal media get away with hiding this fact, stand up for your right to vote without lines on Wednesday November 5th!
Remember this special day is for registered republicans only, democrats and independents must vote tomorrow.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Why can't McCain properly defend his education policy? It is the most important issue facing our nation, and it is where McCain is leaps and bounds ahead of Obama!
We have the best private education system in the world. We have the best college education system in the world, both public and private. We have one of the worst public school systems in the developed world. Why? What's the difference between our tremendously successful college system and private system, and our horrendous public school system? Guess what, it's NOT MONEY. Per-student spending in public schools is almost DOUBLE what it is in private schools! Surprised? You certainly didn't hear that in tonight's debate. Only the absolute top most elite private schools cost more per student than we spend on our public schools, and the difference is not much, just 10-20% more. And students at those elite schools get WAY more in return for that extra 10-20%. Oh, and public school teachers earn more than private school teachers, so that's not it either.
So what's the difference between how our public, government-run schools operate, and how our colleges and private schools operate? Here are the differences:
1. No teachers unions in private schools and colleges.
2. School choice: private schools and colleges must compete for your dollars. Public schools don't; the government decides which school you must attend, based on what neighborhood you live in.
Let's go into #1.
The teachers union is the most dangerous organization on the planet. They are more of a threat to our nation than Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined. They are ruining the education of our children and destroying our only hope of maintaining our prosperity and peace.
The teachers union has made it impossible to fire teachers for poor performance. To be fired, a teacher basically has to break the law or molest a student. They can't be fired for simply being a terrible teacher. It's gotten so bad that at public schools across the country, bad teachers are paid full-time salaries to simply sit in the teachers' lounge all day and not teach! Schools are forced to do this because they don't want these bad teachers anywhere near their students, but they haven't done anything that the union says they can be fired for.
In private schools and colleges, teacher pay is based on performance. In public schools, because of teachers union demands, pay is based on seniority (i.e. how long they've been working there). You can't pay good teachers more and bad teachers less, and therefore you can't attract and reward the best teaching talent. Public teachers as a whole lose the motivation that drives the private sector to work harder and better: more money.
Finally, the teachers union is 100% opposed to school choice. Why? Because it would force all public teachers to work harder and compete for their job, just like everyone does in every job in the private sector.
And this leads directly into Point #2.
It is school choice, in the form of vouchers, that will save our public education system. The way our system works now, schools tell the government how many students they have each year, and the government funds them with X amount of dollars per student. The way school choice will work is this: instead of the government giving those dollars to the school, that money will be given directly to the parents in the form of a voucher. The parents can then take that voucher and use it to send their kids to any school they want, public or private.
What affect will this have? Competition. The same thing that makes our private schools and colleges perform so well. They'll have to wise up, stop wasting money, become more efficient, and start teaching better, or else they'll start losing students. Parents will choose to send their kids to better-performing schools.
Cue the teachers union yelling "But you'll be taking money away from already struggling schools!". Of course, that's the point, and that's a good thing - because the struggling schoo
and replace it with the Democrat party which will bring more failure, dishonorable behavior, and fraud.
Obama may be a breath of fresh air, but as long as the same career politicians keep getting elected to congress, they will keep acting on their own benefit and not the people.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Looking at it from this side of the pond, it is not quite so clear. Compared with socialist-leaning political types we see in Europe, Obama is seen as a very centrist politician. However compared with the usual types of politicians we are used to in this country, it will be a significant shift toward the left if Obama gets the presidency and the Democrats keep control of congress. While this may be only a 2 year shift in power, looking at what happened to Bill Clinton and the Democrats previously, it is nevertheless makes me very nervous to think what might happen in those 2 years.
There is no candidate or their party that represents my more libertarian views on the world. Small government is not represented by either major party, personal gun ownership is shakily represented by the Republicans, and freedom of self-expression is shakily represented by the Democrats (for some history on the changes to what that party represents - look at what the Democrats did to the students in Chicago in the early 60s).
Obama may look right to you. However, I feel he represents the lesser of two evils between him and Senator Clinton. McCain would have been perfect 10 years ago. Now he just seems like a bitter old-man-puppet, who picked a hot "young" thing as his running mate and now will make all of us pay the price of a Democratic President due to his inability to pick a good VP candidate.
It is with pride that I go to the polls tomorrow, especially as a non-native citizen allowed the priveledge to vote via my naturalization. It is with some amount of shame that I pick a candidate that I agree less than 50% with on my topics of interest (including McCain, Obama, Bob Barr and Bill the Cat).
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Her being a creationist really makes me dislike her as a candidate. If she is stubborn enough to not acknowledge even the possibility of evolution, and remains a strict creationist even with the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, how can she handle foreign relations where society is drastically different from our own, or even domestic issues that she doesn't believe in?
Typically I wouldn't care about your religion, but I think you really need to be open to the possibility you are not correct, especially if you're running for such an important office, and be able to work with the other side to reach a middle ground. I don't think creationists demonstrate this ability. But that's not to say that I disrespect creationists just because of their beliefs.
Tell me, how do you "grade" teachers? Why can't you simply go to your PTA meetings and your teacher in service meetings and be a responsible parent and know what your children are doing?
The reason i don't want teacher "appraisals" outside of what a school district does in and of itself is because some people would rate teachers poorly because they're not christian enough, not moral enough or not forcing "family values" enough or other non public educational focused education based issues.
Start by giving teachers livable wages, start by funding real programs that put books, science and math into students hands. Start challenging and teaching kids AT school. Get away from homework, let kids live a life after school and make school about learning.
BTW, if the middle class is doing better, so will the schools. Fix it from the bottom up, not top down.
Obama'08
In terms of education here we have
1) Obama - raised by a single mother to a kenyan father who buggered off, progressed through school and demonstrating ability and prowess at all stages before coming top in Harvard Law.
2) McCain - Rich family with a history in the services, graduated near the bottom of his class, married a richer woman on the second try. Paired up with Palin who things that education is elitist.
Seriously when it comes to education shouldn't we be teaching kids than anyone can become the leader of the country if they work hard and are smart enough not just that you have the right set of bigotry and name-calling to get yourself elected?
Given that in the US education is a State (or lower) level then this isn't a big area for impact at the Federal level, but the best thing the US President could do for the children of the country is demonstrate the value of a good education.
Only Obama does that.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
If I learned anything in high school, it's that in this country "education" no longer means the process of learning. Instead, school has become a daycare for parents to send their kids to until their old enough to move out. I may not be in the majority but I learned very little from actual classes and tests. I received my own computer at the age of 15 and taught myself about hardware and how to program, neither of which my school offered any classes about beyond keyboarding. Now I'm 24 and a senior systems administrator for a large dedicated server management company... thanks to our country's educational system? I think not.
Parents aren't going to give up their free daycare so if I support any educational plan, it's going to be one that involves getting kids who want to learn out of the classroom and into environments where they can use their time more productively.
Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
Fortunately, it looks like Science and Logic are about to take the stage again. Sadly, here in America, we have upwards of around 20% that believes in creationism of some form. So far, nearly all that I have meet that believe in it, are real whack jobs. When I asked one of my past students about it, he said that James Dobson showed conclusively that Carbon dating does not work. Dobson tested a metal knife blade. When I pointed out that it only works on items that were living before, he said that dobson said otherwise. Sad, sad, sad.
Thank God we are heading back into cooler and logical minds.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Tomorrow we go to the polls to elect the next failed administration, and the next failed Congress.
Regardless of who is elected, I feel that both candidates have the wrong attitude towards government. I feel that the role of government is simply to protect our lives and our property from one another. Both candidates espouse statist ideals that want to take away from our self governance or continue policies that take away our power.
Both throw out petty scraps of meat to the people to get them to vote for their demise. This year, they throw the meager pickings of tax cuts. Perhaps four years from now it will be the threat of terrorists again, or perhaps health care.
Both voted for a plan to give hundreds of billions of dollars to failed banks that gave loans to people who deserved none. Let them fail. The consequences of propping up zombie banks are greater than of letting them fail and having the market adjust.
Tomorrow I go to the polls to vote Libertarian, to fight the establishment.
SSC
Promises about improvement in education by federal politicians are pure pandering.
See this chart.
See how small a percent of education is actually funded by the federal government. It should be obvious that even significant changes to federal spending will have an insignificant effect. They spend in a whole year what they spend in Iraq in less than 3 months.
In the end, I couldn't care less about the creation myths others have, even our President. After 6 Republican Presidential terms, they still haven't managed to overturn Roe.v.Wade.
On the other hand, taxes are never found unconstitutional, and rarely reduced significantly. The only way to avoid them is to never increase them.
I vote my financial self interest, and regardless of what the Obama propaganda is it has nothing to do with $250k
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
It is not the government's job to plan things for us. It is hilariously bad at it, anyway. It is the government's job to protect our liberties so we can do things ourselves.
We are perfectly capable of organizing our own local educational systems. Some of them won't be as good as others, but they can learn from the ones that are successful.
Having the government plan it, and run it, will just guarantee that the quality continues to degrade universally.
I joined the military to pay my way through college. My family always stressed the importance of education. After spending all that time getting a bachelor's in IT, I'm worse off than my uneducated parents. I frequently think I would have been much better off being a plumber or an electrician. At least those jobs require a license, some skill and can't be sent overseas. (i.e. manufacturing and IT) What good is an education if no one will pay you to use it?
If you feel that scientific research funding is important to education (or anything at all, for that matter), then you should be concerned about the Science Budget Freezes Proposed by John Sidney McCain III.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Unless you happen to believe in creationism (like many do in the USA) then this is the trigger to vote for McCain/Palin.
Let's be honest here. Unless Palin is actually teaching the class her outlook on evolution has zero to do with her relation to education. Infact, keeping her in as a governor is probably more likely to get creationism pushed on more students than her being a vice president. On the federal level all she's going to do is go on and on about budgets. That's it.
If every intelligent person voted, these elections would never be too close to call.
Intelligent by who's standards? If your idea of intelligent is the normal Slashdot "everyone who thinks like me" kind of thing than I'm sure you're right. As for me? I know tons of vastly intelligent people who have some ideas that are far from my own. Enough to make me question who's really right. And out of these same tons of people many probably think creationism has some glimmer of truth to it. It doesn't bother me because I'm not asking them to teach biology to me.
Even if I were the difference between the evolutionist camp and the creationist camp means jack shit in the real world. How about we leave that stupid little debate behind and work on the idea that we're graduating kids that can't balance a checkbook. A fucking checkbook has a lot more to do with how this country progresses than whatever theory you have on the origins and progression of life. I bet you that if everyone in this country believed in creationism but could balance a checkbook we'd be a lot better off. We haven't even go an acceptable majority of the kids graduating to cover the basics of everyday life and we're busy bickering over evolution? Huh?
Also the nefarious involvement of unscrupulous people doing bad things to win, decreases the predictability of an outcome, when both sides are doing it.
It's just another reason to reject the two party system if you ask me. When we can finally shed ourselves of the "us or them" maybe we'll also let go of the hate that accompanies it.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Silly me. I thought the First Amendment allowed me to bitch until my heart is content.
I'm tired of hearing that I can't complain if I don't vote. Who made up this mantra? The people who want you to vote for them.
And the masses have bought it. They think they really have a say in what happens in government. Ha!
By choosing not to vote I *am* making my statement: I don't like the candidates or the system.
Enough with Groupthink.
Palin's stance on creationism? You mean that evolution should be taught exclusively in science class, as it is in Alaska? And that there's nothing wrong with discussing alternative views, in an appropriate context, without putting them in the curriculum? What's wrong with that?
I'm a scientist. I think that intelligent design and creationism are hogwash. But because of America's foundation in religion, they are concepts that anyone will come across outside of school. I think they should be discussed, at the teacher's discretion, especially if a student brings up the question, but should not be mandated in the curriculum.
Palin said in one interview "teach both... don't be afraid of information". The next day she went on to clarify her position by saying that they shouldn't be part of the curriculum, but it's ok to discuss them if a student brings it up. Actually here's the exact quote: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
If every intelligent person voted, these elections would never be too close to call.
Intelligent != ability to make good choices. There are plenty of folks of average intelligence who excel at making good decisions and plenty of brilliant ones who continually fuck up their decisions. Intelligent people are subject to irrationality, self-interest and bias, just like everyone else.
I'm sure that this isn't the popular opinion among the alpha dorks who worship on the altar of IQ, but so be it.
They may have originated with those banks, but because Fannie and Freddie were buying up those mortgages and they had an implicit government guarantee. If Fannie and Freddie didn't exist, those private investment banks would not have had an irresponsible gov't entity to sell their questionable loans to, so they would have had to scrutinize their borrowers more.
Oh really?
In every political commercial that I've seen so far, both McCain AND Obama were throwing poo at each other.
All that post sounds like is propaganda, not any "informative" input.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Over the last 30 years I've watched well-funded lobby groups essentially take over the entire political process. Since these groups are generally better funded when connected to commercial interests, the political process has once again become beholden to big industrial concerns (it was even more so 100 years ago). It's not that lobby groups are bad, pre se, its that they are, by definition, lopsided; they present a single view of the world that may or may no be countered by the "other side" of the issue. As elections become more and more expensive, this process has accelerated to its own quasi-democratic existence.
Obama managed to use Dean's model to rally the individual for his funding. He's still beholden to large groups, but so much less so than any presidential candidate over the last decade or so. This is a wonderful opportunity to mute down the influence of lobby groups, because he won't be committing political suicide by doing so.
And no-one's talking about it. It's completely off the radar.
Maury
how can we be free while subjected to Palin's version of Genesis?
Because, as you quoted, it is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Neither Palin nor McCain has ever expressed a desire to force either you or your children to follow their religious choices.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
The Constitution has been trodden upon these last 8 years (and more). Here is just one citation, for those who need one. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/13/1830202
Has ANY of the candidates described the steps they would take to roll us back from the Constitutional abyss?
The inference has been that the current administration has been abusing its power in this area. It strikes me as "illogical" that they would take such steps toward setting up a surveillance society, only to hand the keys to the Bastille to "another" administration.
Help me understand.
Obama is slinging the mud faster than McCain, except Obama isn't doing the slinging? And yet Obama is slinging more mud? That's a bit of a contradiction there.
McCain is clearly slinging much more mud than Obama. Just lately you have the "Obama paling around with terrorist" speech, and the "if you don't vote McCain/Palin, you are not a real American" nonsense. This is in addition to nonsense like "Obama wants to teach children about sex" and similar lies. Sites like FactCheck.org all confirm that McCain has been far worse than Obama.
Is that so? Interesting. When did he apologize for Palin's terrorist remarks? When did he apologize for claiming that Obama wants to teach children about sex?
The last time I saw her state her stance, it was this: "teach [evolution and creationism] in class and let the students critically analyze both."
This is actually a problem in modern media -- the "journalists" (I use this term loosely) want to give equal time to the nutjobs. Take for another example the vaccinations vs autism discussions. There's little credible evidence to correlate these two items, but if one parent squawks loudly enough, the local news reporter wants to cover it, thus elevating the visibility of the nutjob theory far above that which is justified.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
That is, frankly, because your libertarian views are stupid.
No, seriously. "Libertarianism' is a scam invented by the rich, who want the government to only do things that benefit them and no one else. (Like run a police force and court system, to keep people from stealing their shit or living on their land for free.)
They hide this by making claims about the 'original' purpose of government, which is, in fact, exactly that, to protect the rich, although they won't come out and say that.
More to the point, they then make the rather absurd claim that they should get this while paying as little taxes as possible.
While a large percentage of Americans haven't figured out the premise of the party and have a sort of grudging respect for it as the underdog, under no circumstances do they actually want to implement those policies.
Thus libertarians who actually show up and debate on their views for the general election get smashed, and that normally applies to the primaries too, although we saw a fun exception with Ron Paul doing pretty good with some viewers because the GOP has gone so spectacularly off the rails in a different way.
But if Ron Paul had show up against Obama, he would have been crushed. Probably more than McCain, even with the advantage of being able to actually present himself as separate from the Republican Party and without making such a dumb VP choice.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
As Much as Creationism seems to strike a chord with some people, I've never actually understood why.
I've always looked at creationism historically, as in a "This is what a guy 2-3 thousand years ago though how the universe was made when science rarely existed and wasn't as important as religion" kind of way. That being said, it's not too far off from creationism considering the religious source and the age of the text other than the 7 days thing, but realistically what's 7 days to God? a billion years? 10 minutes? who knows.
Based on that, I believe that it should be taught in schools, but only as an historical reference to how we led to the current evolution theory. Similar to how Spontaneous generation is taught in schools as a previously accepted theory until a new theory proved it was incorrect.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
One party in complete control of everything... bye bye remnants of democracy...
Eh, democracy survived the first six years of the GWB administration. Somehow I don't think the Democrats will do any worse.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You do know (or would know if you had any ability to use a keyboard beyond typing idle speculation) that Obama graduated Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law so he was in the top 10% of his class. That is enough for me to go on. Does it matter what his Columbia grades were?
Okay, so let me see if I understand you...
My parents immigrated to this country when I was 2. My dad had only a high school education, and my mom a middle school education. My brother and I are the first generation of our family to totally grow up in the US and get college educations.
So, if we become financially successful, and can afford to give our children a better education, you want to deny us that "In the interest of trying to give people some sembelance of an equal playing field?"
That is just immoral.
We went to crappy city schools, and still learned well, because our parents instilled in us a sense of how important our education is. There is nothing the government can do to take the place of that.
Education will never be equal for everyone, and that is the major problem with the ideologues that wish it to be so. It is futile and can only degrade our education system on the whole, not "average things out."
Maybe parties and candidates don't represent libertarian views, because libertarianism is a niche philosophy which would alienate huge sections of the population.
Correction: President of the Harvard Law Review. Not "just" an editor, in other words.
Compared with socialist-leaning political types we see in Europe, ...
You have some curious notions, I think. A bit like saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury leans towards Satanism because he is not as far to the extreme right as the average American Creationist. And the funny things is, quite a lot of Americans I know seem to agree with a lot of Socialist ideas, as long as it isn't called Socialism. As far as I can see, you Americans are distributed politically exactly like people in Europe, only you call it something different, because you have grown up fearing the words "socialism" and "communism".
I don't think European scepticism about McCain has as much to do with him as with Sarah Palin; she may have put the "hot in hot", as I heard recently, but she's also put the "alas" into "Alaska". You are probably right - it doesn't matter much whether it is one or the other; except for the threat of Palin getting into power. Because to a great extent, the situation in the world is going to dictate which decisions the next president will make, if he has any common sense. McCain has, Obama has, Biden has, but I am not sure what Sarah Palin has.
I don't know what it is with you guys about "small government"; I mean, you do want public roads, education for all as well as judicial system, police and military, don't you? I doubt that many would prefer all those things to be privatised. And you cling to your guns like a drug addict to his next fix; it isn't even as if people who wanted to own a gun wouldn't be able to. I mean, if I want to own a gun in UK, I can do so legally; it is just not something you can buy in the local car boot sale.
Evangelicals want to attack it, to make students skeptical about science in general. They want to move towards a magical world view where cause and effect are not necessarily linked. Why would a person be interested in balancing a check book, if they literally believe that "God will provide " for them? I mean all they have to do is pray hard enough and eventually they'll be rich too. Or at least that's what a lot of evangelical churches are teaching. They teach that poor people weren't pious or good enough, because obviously if they were, God would have provided for them
I haven't seen anything to indicate that more than a vocal minority of creationists believe this kind of foolishness. It's popular to assume that if someone believes in creationism or ID, they're morons who think that thunder means that God is angry with them. This is reinforced because we all stand around telling each other it must be so.
The funny thing is, though, that I know a lot of religious people who are also intelligent. If the subject weren't taboo in the work place, you would probably find that you do as well. These people are successful in their fields (business and science); and they believe that there is merit to both creationism and evolution and that the two are not mutually exclusive. They certainly don't advocate that science not be taught, or that the scientific method be abandoned in favor of faith and magic.
Few of them even care whether "ID" is taught alongside evolution or not - these are people who go about their lives, usually rather successfully. Personally, I believe these "quiet faithful" are the majority of our society's religious people. You might be surprised how many of them you know - and at how little interest they have in shoving their religion down your throat. On the other hand, they /do/ get tired of being considered morons because they have faith in a 'higher power'. I think this is a large part of why McCain is able to make this a close race.
It's much easier to tell ourselves how smart we are when we can paint all of "them" with a single brush as fanatical morons who sit on their asses and wait for god to provide. As is often the case, though, stereotypes only actually fit the smallest minority of the group being classified.
I would suggest to libertarians that they moved to a libertarian country and see for themselves. No big government messing in your business, no taxes, guns for everyone. If you are smart enough, strong enough, hard working you can have everything.
Examples of heaven on Earth: Congo Democratic Republic, Afghanistan, Somalia, Colombia, Kosovo.
You will live happy as can be, at least until the next warlord/druglord murders you to get your place.
(Note my restraint)
In most districts, schools have a mandatory 165-180 day school year. With holidays and spring break, this makes for a school year of at least 9 months and often closer to 10. I know of no teacher that gets 4 months off for summer vacation. I have to believe you're just totally lying. Add to this, the fact that most teachers require a couple weeks to prepare for the start of the school year.
However, that doesn't really count here, since in most cases they're not paid for it.
I also knew a teacher who taught three classes and a study hall. He was getting paid $18K a year. Most teachers have a mandatory 7 hour work day with a 30 minute lunch. However, its common for teachers to spend 2-4 hours of time after the end of the school day preparing for the next.
I know a few teachers who'd love to show you where to put your head for implying that they were too lazy to try and get a second job to fill out those last four hours of spare time they have a day.
I suspect the real problem here is that you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. You cherry picked an example which made you bitter and never used another neuron to think about it.
No, he's saying it's not an education or school problem. It's a parents and social issue. Education is not valued in lower incomes. For whatever reason it's not the 'cool' thing to do. When a higher income family sends their kids to private school they are not only spending their money to do that, but showing that they value an education. I was poor growing up and went to some pretty poor public schools, but my parents pushed education from day 1 as a way to better myself. When I talk to my teacher friends today they can't even get a parent to call them back to discuss their child. More money is not going to solve this issue, and neither is sending these kids to 'better' schools. A does of harsh reality is the only way to fix it at this point. It's time to stop blaming their current situation on everyone else and do something about it.
What us guys mean by "small government" is a small restricted federal government... not gone, I'm pretty sure most of us guys aren't anarchists, just limited. The federal government is primarily meant to act as a single unit with the outside world, including military forces, diplomacy and trade, and to facilitate trade and cooperation between the states. This means that a military, the interstate highway system, monetary policy, and other acts of the federal government are well within their purview and worthwhile. However, on education, police and most other internal matters, many of us guys would prefer the federal government to stay out.
This does not mean, however, that we don't want those things as a public service, just not one provided at a federal level. On police and fire protection, education, drug and alcohol policy, city roads, etc., many of us feel that the local governments serve us better, since they are closer to the people, have a smaller system to administer (less bureaucracy), and if it ever gets too bad where you are, its much easier to move between cities and states than to leave the US entirely. Plus, look at No Child Left Behind, the War on Drugs, and the 21-year drinking age to see exactly how well the federal government has done at getting involved in what should be local affairs.
Of course, there are some problems with the system, it tends to create a patchwork of laws that vary in arbitrary ways (look at our voting laws), which I see as a necessary inconvenience. The biggest concern I have is that with an education system based almost entirely locally, you have a situation where poor areas have poor schools, and you strengthen the feedback where poverty breeds poverty. Even then though, federal involvement has usually had the effect of bringing all schools down to the same level rather than improving the bad ones, while in Tulsa, Oklahoma (not exactly a bastion of liberal thinking) we've had some pretty good results where the school districts include both rich and poor areas, and the poorer districts create magnet schools. Could it be improved, yes, but I'm not sure federal mandates are the way to do it.
So thats what us guys, in a very large country with strong streak of individualism mean when we say small government... and Palin makes me think of an evil mix between Bush, Rove, and Martha Stewart.... I agree with you there.
I don't he's hiding anything, it took me 2 seconds to find it with google:
3.8 GPA ---Columbia Poly Sci major with a specialty in international relations.
4.0 GPA with high honors. ---Harvard Law
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm personally a libertarian, but one of the few things I think the government should be spending money on is education and scientific research. Education is an investment in the future. If we raise the level of education in this country, encourage students to like learning, and really progress we will remain a superpower, if only because we will dominate technology and science in the world.
We need to pay teachers a competitive wage to get the really bright people interested in being teachers. And we need to give them the resources to really inspire the next generation. A good teacher can make the difference in someone's life. We also need to fund programs to give smarter children access to the resources they need to jump to the next level, not just keep them with the average person. And we need to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator - the slowest person in a class should not be dragging everyone else down.
For college, we should be paying students who do well and who aren't going into high paying careers like Wall Street or lawyers. If you offer someone the ability to go to the top private schools for free if they later become a teacher or scientist a lot more people will do that. Higher up, we should be paying more money to graduate students, postdocs, and scientists. Only the most dedicated stay in the field when you get paid so little (disclaimer: I am a graduate student in astrophysics right now, and I've seen plenty of people leave for higher paying jobs in other fields after finishing).
And instead of welfare, we should be getting people educated so that they can work in a more demanding job. I would much rather pay $50,000 for someone to get a college degree and then start working at a good wage then pay someone $20,000 as welfare.
How can I justify this based on my libertarian leanings? Because it's an investment. If the government funds someone's education and it costs $100,000, but then that person is able to make $150k/year instead of $50k, the government will get it's money back in a matter of years. Hopefully there will be fewer criminals because more people will be interested in working instead of doing nothing. Obviously money won't solve everything, but it will be a good start and personally I would much rather see the money currently being spent on social programs invested in the future, not in the present.
The USA's bullying foreign policy has resulted in huge deficits from Offense Spending. I don't want my kids to have to deal with MY problem.
Unlike the whiners and non-competatives, I WANT to pay more. I WANT to pay down the debt. It's the responsible, non-selfish, thing to do.
Blar.
Missing the point slightly.
The point is that small government benefits only the rich, Who just get the things (defence, law and order, maybe roads) that they cannot provide for themselves. Meanwhile they avoid having to pay taxes for healthcare, education etc, which they can easily buy for themselves.
The weird thing about America , as seen from the rest of the world, is that so many people have the illusion that one day they will be rich (I'm a good guy, so god will deliver eventually) and seem to care more about having a system that will benefit them then, rather than one that suits where they are now. (deep in the crap, along with everyone else.)
I lived in the states for a few years back in the Reagan era, and the fraction of my income that went on "taxes plus things taxes should pay for" (healthcare, decent education for kids etc) was (or would have been if my kid was school age then- without it was marginal) significantly higher that it would have been here in the UK at the time.
I can understand how selfish bastards on $200k+ would vote republican, I've spent 30+ years trying unsuccessfully to understand why anyone else would