Slashdot Mirror
Conservative Textbook Curriculum Passes Final Vote In Texas
suraj.sun sends in a followup to a story we've been following about the Texas Board of Education's efforts to put a more political spin on some of their state's textbooks. From the Dallas Morning News:
"In a landmark move that will shape the future education of millions of Texas schoolchildren, the State Board of Education on Friday approved new curriculum standards for US history and other social studies courses that reflect a more conservative tone than in the past. Split along party lines, the board delivered a pair of 9-5 votes to adopt the new standards, which will dictate what is taught in all Texas schools and provide the basis for future textbooks and student achievement tests over the next decade. Texas standards often wind up being taught in other states because national publishers typically tailor their materials to Texas, one of the biggest textbook purchasers in the country. Approval came after the GOP-dominated board approved a new curriculum standard that would encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation — a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer."
We either need the DOE to take control of this kind of thing, or we need the other states to be willing to go through this process for themselves.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Welcome to the new American Taliban.
Finally they are no longer pretending to be like the rest of us.
Still fighting the American Civil War in 2010.
Setting aside questions about Texas itself for the moment, I wonder if this will cause other states to go to greater lengths to separate their curriculum from Texas's. The curriculum change got a lot of opposition in Texas, and I can only imagine it would get a far greater amount in many of the other states, especially the more liberal ones.
The conservatives often complain that we spend too much money on education costs. But yet they then want to rewrite all the textbooks to meet their own versions of history. In the end, aren't they just increasing the costs of education, by forcing schools to buy new textbooks that meet the new standards? This seems counter to the "free market", "don't tread on me" idealism that they were pushing not too long ago...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Those who control the present, control the past. Those who control the past, control the future.
You can't handle the truth.
encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation -- a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer.
While there are numerous problems with the curriculum, isn't teaching students to be skeptical of government a good thing? If you blindly follow what the government says, democracy in a free society falls apart.
A free thinking individual should be skeptical of all things the government has done, question the motives for various laws and if they believe they are unjust, vote against them or otherwise try to get them repealed.
There are some good examples in this particular case. It just comes down to interpretation.
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.
Is the actual text, it says nowhere about "separation of church and state" it comes down to interpretation if school prayer is a violation of establishing a national religion.
Really, out of all the things wrong in the Texas curriculum why does TFS point out something that could very well be a benefit. Teaching students to question government.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Oi! I'm a goddamn piece of shit cum-stain on humanity, I would regress us back into the dark ages with a selfish, head-up-haemorrhoid-filled-arse mentality and I object to being compared to the Texas Board of Education.
"We need to have students compare and contrast this current view of separation of church and state with the actual language in the First Amendment," said McLeroy, who like other social conservatives contends that separation of church and state was established in the law only by activist judges and not by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
I don't suppose this and statements like "Christian land governed by Christian principles" would provide ammunition for a lawsuit that the State Board of Education is itself guilty of a violation of the separation of church and state? It's not evolution, to be sure, but the motivation sounds, based on these accounts, to be highly suspect.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Home schooling. I know someone who home schooled her daughter for a while because the girl had a teacher that was just destroying her self-esteem. The girl thought that she sucked at math (Her mother and father all scored well over 600 on the Math part of their SATs). Anyway, the woman home schooled her kid and got tutors when needed to bring her up to speed - funny, compared to her female classmates at the time, she ended up surpassing them when she went back into the system, which totally surprised the teachers. Usually, home schooled kids fall way behind.
Anyway, she said she would get some lesson plans from catalogs (slim pickings) and the catalog home school companies sold her name and she started getting all this kooky religious home schooling stuff - like teaching creationism and other such non-sense.
I don't know about now, but most of the home school curriculums where "Christian" in nature - read no real science.
So, outside of public schools, there's not many options for a middle class or poorer parent. Besides, how many people have the time and energy to teach their kids grade and high school level material - especially since we've forgot most of it.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Dear Texas,
Remember when you wanted independence from Mexico? You went and had that little revolution. Now you brag about how you're the only state to have ever been its own republic, yada, yada.
Tell you what, you can have your independence back. The rest of us never really liked you; we kinda think you're douchebags. So, go raise that Lone Star flag and tattoo "In God We Trust" on all of your children.
Sincerely,
The Rest of Us
----- obSig
Speaking as a generally liberal person, I'd have to agree with this. While I believe there should continue to be a strong separation of church and state, I don't think see anything at all wrong with students being encouraged to examine the question of whether or not there should be. After all, the whole point of a "liberal" education (in the classical sense) is to encourage dogma-free thinking (including the freedom to examine the pros and cons of dogma-free thinking).
Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
I've wondered about this for a while now - couldn't universities ban together and commit some resources (a small contribution from a large number of schools) to create a K-12 series of texts on major subjects, that is designed by the best available experts and freely available for all districts to use? Creative Commons licensing (oddly enough, CC has a link right now to Virginia's Department of Education and some work they are doing) and (insofar as is humanly possible) a focus on just the facts of history and their documentable consequences. To enforce some objective standard of what constitutes a fact, require documented citations to primary historical sources for all parts of the book asserting facts - preferably citations with links to the source material. The final form of the textbook delivered to students wouldn't necessarily include those references, but they would be present online and mandatory for anything that reached the "final" version. Let the broader college professor community decide on the acceptability of/validity of any particular cited source.
Not only would this provide a mechanism for creation and distribution of textbooks that wouldn't be easily influenced by political agendas (tenured professors are about as pressure-proof as we're likely to get and still have sufficient domain knowledge to do useful work) but it would make good quality teaching materials universally and cheaply available. If school districts didn't have to pony up so much money for textbooks, what else could they do with the money?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
"What we have is the history profession, the experts, seem to have a left-wing tilt, so what we were doing is trying to restore some balance to the standards," board member Don McLeroy said in March.
In other words: "Despite being a two-bit politician on a school board, I'm going to ignore what even I call the experts' views and bend curriculum to support my political whims because I am a fucking retard."
They don't sound so "conservative" to me. Lies are conservative?
Environmentalism=conservation, "conservatives"=anti-environmentalism.
Constitution: separation of church and state (what could be more conservative than the basis of all US law?). "Conservatives": church in state=sponsored schools.
The list goes on. The only thing they want to conserve is the rich's wealth. "Antiprogress" is a better label than "conservative".
These "conservatives" are anti-American.
Free Martian Whores!
First, this isn't really 'technology' or even 'science' news. This is at this point political news
Wow. That explais why it's in the "politics" section! I'd been trying to figure that out. Thanks. One question though: why would you think it had anything to do with science or technology?
You're assuming those are the same conservatives. In fact, you're almost certainly addressing two almost entirely different factions within the movement, the economic and social conservatives. They have only the thinnest of threads in common, but are allied because they would lose every election if they competed for votes.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
social conservatism is all about a simplistic model of human behavior: teenagers, just don't have sex, homosexuals, just stop being homosexual, just say no to drugs, etc.
ironically, social conservatives always wind up breaking their own principles. just examine the folly of anti-homosexual activists found in homosexual situations form throughout history, especially recent, for examples. and you can bet the daughters of politicians who rail against abortion are secretly flown to canada when a "problem" happens
social conservatism is always "do as i say, not as i do". and there isn't really any malice in their simple-mindedness. most of them sincerely believe their own dunderheaded takes on human nature, and then wind up paying the price for their simpleminded edicts on human behavior
human nature is complex, and when forced into simplistic models, you just wind up causing more suffering than you are attempting to stop. this isn't an attempt to excuse lack of responsibility or criminal activity, its a simple obvious statement that the real world is more complex than very simpleminded teachings
social conservatives are not evil, they're just stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Regardless of what decisions they make, does it bother anyone else that a board or 15 people apparently decides the curriculum for the whole country? Seems like that would be the first thing to fix.
Why just Texas? All states East of New Mexico and South of Maryland should secede from the union and become the Confederacy of Dumbfuckistan. And this time, the North'll simply wave "bye-bye" instead of wage civil war.
When Teddy Roosevelt and the rest of the sane people left the Republican party in 1912.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
What you call 'bigotry', (ie. the harsh animosity towards people who are plainly illustrating how they are going to lie to our children and strip history of truth and lessons in order to fit a terribly mislead political agenda) can hardly be viewed as entirely unjustified.
This is not a difference of opinion. This is an angry outlash at those who would take their obstinate or intolerant devotion to his or her own opinions and prejudices, look at it and say "Hm...well, I could just poison my OWN children with these lies, but I think I am going to have laws pushed through that can spread the deception to every single child in the state."
Setting up situations where your academic record has the potential to be coloured by your belief in a god is disgusting. It deserves to be railed with the foulest language available. It's the same thing as teaching creationism in science class. You're lying because it's not science, it's hocus pocus. If you want to believe in giants at the top of beanstalks or whatever, fine. Live your fantasy. But you can't take your made up lah-dee-dahs and force the general public to believe them through indoctrination.
OH NOES SOCIALISM!
Next thing you know they'll be confiscating all your property and making you work in the salt mines!
This is not "Conservative"! Using "Conservative" to describe this is like using "Hacker" to describe script kiddies, or "Canadian Goose" to instead of "Canada Goose". It's popular, but it's still wrong!
Conservative means a limited government with limited power to interfere in the lives of individual citizens; That is, the government has no jurisdiction over (and therefore cannot interfere in) gay marriage, abortion, individual educational materials, etc. These "Conservatives" want a large oppressive government to force their social and religious agendas on the citizenry; That is not conservative! It's the opposite! Stop calling it that!
"Under God" was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance. Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892. The phrase "Under God" was added in 1954.
Obligatory map
Reducing the role of Thomas Jefferson? Why? He's one of my favorite founding father. The person who writes so eloquently about freedom and dares to question the validity of God by cutting and pasting his own version of the bible. Yet, he still chooses to keep slave and may have even father children with slaves. To me, Thomas Jefferson personifies the constant struggle we all have between liberty and financial reality.
Our society is best served when we base our laws and actions on our collective logic and reason. What ever flaws DOE or any other government bureaucracy has is infinitely better than having our laws decided base on a illogical text supposedly written by God but in reality is written by men masquerading as God. The social conservative can't win their arguments base on science or logic so now they are trying to subvert our nation with politics staring with our children. I am ashamed to be a registered Republican. Damn, when they said small fiscally responsible government I didn't know the plan was to save money by moving city hall to the local christian churches and hand everyone a bible as an all purpose first aid kit, universal text book, and life's decision maker. . . . .
The entire education system in U.S. has a very left bias. Our kids are being indoctrinated, not taught. This is good because these textbooks return facts to the books. The left wing bias of most posters here is disconcerting. You all post as if your minority view is the correct one. America is a Center-Right Country. Always has been. Our kids need to be taught facts, not leftist ideology and indoctrinated with lies and bias. So, any movement to put facts into textbooks is a good one.
Read radical news here
It might interest you to know that from a standpoint of pretty much every other democratic country in the world, the USA's main parties are either right wing or extreme right wing. Progressives are merely moderate right wing.
USA fear of anything "social" causes few americans to understand there is a very wide gap between fascism/communism and what americans consider normal.
Most of the world has watched with puzzlement as many american's protested (and continue to protest) against a medical healthcare system even less social than what most democratic countries have been running succesfully for decades.
In my own experience, many Americans seem to blackout when the word "social" is mentioned, immediately jumping to the conclusion that it means "oppressive communist dictatorship" instead of merely "less anti-social". When the USA and it's citizens do so many things right and have so much to offer the rest of the world, I just find it sad to know most Americans simply don't care about anybody but themselves.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
These things can be fixed by a couple of well placed SAT questions.
(So, is it time the country to secede from Texas?)
You are right. Whether they realize it or not, the "progressives" in the US tend more towards fascism than socialism
I'd hardly call our current crop of Dems "progressive" by any means, and it seems to me that both the Democrats and Republicans are getting a little too friendly with fascism these days. Both the right and the left are getting fed up with their parties.
The obvious solution is proportional representation, but we're too lazy to implement it. We've got the politicians we deserve.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Progress is always a bad word when it's progressing toward a negative outcome. Progress is just a motion toward something. Motion toward what?
The rise of the third Reich was progressive, and so was the American Revolution. They were just progressing toward opposite end goals. What is considered 'progressive' these days is usually a progression toward an eco-fascist politically correct tyranny disguised as a friendly humanitarian democracy. It's a similar tyranny to Communism. They'll love you to death. In fact, the more they love you, the more you seem to be impoverished. Neato. Progressives are not champions of anything other than state power and authoritarian government that would make Adolf Hitler jealous. They are just as bad as Republicans. They don't even care when their own "messiahs" are bombing countries around the world for the profit of the armaments industry and Wall Street banks, just so long as it's done by their man.
Progress is a means, not an end. The political trickery is to make you believe progress is an end in itself, so that you won't pay attention to just what this progression is leading us toward.
There is a huge difference in the state of Texas spending their own money to educate their children with a curriculum they choose and the United States government taxing every tax paying American to educate all children with a one sided, politically correct/motivated curriculum.
How is this different from the state of Texas taxing every tax paying Texan to educate all children with a one sided, politically (and factually) incorrect/motivated curriculum and the United States spending their (collective) money to educate their children with a curriculum they (collectively) choose?
Honestly, apart from the fact you (presumably) like the choices the Texas School Board is making, I can't see the difference.
There's a lot of conservatives who hate the idea of state education and want all the schools to be private with no government standards. Cynthia Dunbar, one of the bigger whackjobs on the board, isn't a fan of public schools according to her book where She calls public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion." The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even "tyrannical".
I wonder if that motivation isn't at play here, try to politicize the education standards so much that people lose faith in a state run education system.
I stole this Sig
I've yet to see an unbiased point-by-point comparison between the new and old standards. Everyone reporting on the issue seems to have an axe to grind, and most often with the aim of inflaming as many of those who agree with their view as possible. Most of what we've seen reported hasn't even been actual text from the books - but rather paraphrased 'goals' written by those with an agenda, or out-of-context quotes.
Until we see that sort of comparison, I would suggest that most of the hyperbole and histrionics are premature.
The students who actually study the issues will see the differences of opinion and fact, and draw their own conclusions.Those who just accept the printed information usually do not care one way or the other.
As the students raise through the educational system, they will be exposed to other viewpoints, and can decide for themselves.
There is an assumption in these posts that all students in Texas are no more than blank screens waiting for the bigots of this view or that to propagandize them into mindless conformity. When the hell have teens been in conformity to anything adults value?
I believe that the Texas School Board is doing nothing but posturing for future political purposes.
Roosevelt's son should have run against FDR. We might not had 20 years of economic hell. Does anyone realize that FDR ran against the "socialistic" Irish in NY, then completed a 180 after the election? He took all of those "socialistic" ideals that he abhorred.
You have no idea what socialism is.
Go back to Glenn Beck.
Little by little the United States of America is becoming the Corporate Socialist States of Jesus.
"In God We Trust" did not show up on United States currency until around the time of the Civil War and was not officially a motto on the currency until 1956.
Sadly there is a large segment of the population that believe the United States is a Christian nation because of things like "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust" but they never actually studied any real history and don't realize those statements are in our government because they put them there not the people who formed this nation.
Progress toward what though?
All I've seen from self defined progressives is a progressive trend to authoritarianism. The same is true for religious conservatives.
It is a shame that people don't see that both want what they feel is best for you. And it's a damned shame that neither want to give you a choice in the matter.
When the progression is toward authority. It isn't surprising when people treat it as a dirty word.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
My little brother is a Boy Scout, so I've attended some of the ceremonies. One thing that's always struck me is there's usually a period in which the leader of the ceremony says something along the lines of "We now ask that you join us in a moment of silence/prayer (I don't remember which), each in your own way." followed by the moment of silence.
Why couldn't the schools take the same attitude? It's not that acknowledging religion is illegal/unconstitutional, it's that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (although that, of course, only applies to Congress, not the states).
"Under God" was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance. Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892. The phrase "Under God" was added in 1954.
You realize that you are supporting the sentiment of the person you are replying to, right?
Maybe that was your intent, but it sure sounds like you think you are rebutting him.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Francis Bellamy was OMG a socialist! Really. And a Christian Socialist at that. See his Wikipedia entry.
Imagine the reaction nowadays if schools anywhere in the U.S. were to adopt anything written by a socialist!
You sort of missed the point and got the problem without realizing it altogether.
The US is right learning compared to the rest of the civilized world- however, when you look at the strengths of the US, you will find that position is mostly why we have so much to offer the rest of the world. Take Europe for instance, the more left they run, the less productive the seem to be. By productive, I mean in areas like innovation and such. They socialized medical care and have largely been playing catchup in innovation and technology ever since. Now don't get me wrong, they still innovate, they still come up with great accomplishments, but it's not as much as in more free areas where profit is a stronger motivator.
Then you have issues like defense. If the US hadn't paid for most of Europe's defense in the last century or so, they wouldn't have had the social programs they see today. In the last election in the UK, the expected new prime ministers were asked questions about relations with the US and something that illustrates this point is a response (I forget which one said it) that boils down to "close ties with the US allows the UK to overextend it's weight around the world which allows a great benefit to the UK". But more importantly, without the US's military investment in Europe, you would have large armies instead of large social programs and history has showed us more then once what happens when Europe has large armies controlled by separate entities sitting around.
Most Americans are raise with the concept that you take care of yourself and your family. This is one reason why Gangs are such problems, they recruit in the style of extending the family (thereby extending the strength and stability of the family) which attracts very loyal people bordering on zealotry. The concept of social dependency is taboo when people have grown up always having to provide for themselves and make things happen on their own. This is changing as schools have made it more common to expect dependency on others with school lunch programs and so on.
There is also a sort of separation seen by some/most of the American people where they see the community as there people they know and live with, not the governments imposing restrictions on them. Combine this with traditional christian values of taking care of the people around you in need, and it seems to be sort of an insult to take from one to give to another when people are supposed to pull together and do it themselves. The Amish communities in America get out of paying social security taxes and unemployment/workers compensation taxes because of this religious interpretation. they also will never collect from any of those sources as they see relying on insurance as a failing of the church and community. I'm not even sure the Amish could live and practice in other countries because of that core belief.
The "Americans protested (and continue to protest) against a medical health care system", if I may add some insight to why they protest it, is multi based. Part of it is the providing for yourself, even if that means purchasing insurance from some company, part of it is the loss of freedoms where healthy individuals in their prime don't really need more then catastrophic coverage and now they will be forced to purchase a more comprehensive package, and then there are some who simply can't stand the retarded closed system of government that rammed the health care bill through without the slightest bit of what most would consider to be due diligence.
I'm sure many foreigners might jump on in disagreement i
and i would respond by saying that a society lorded over by social conservatives is better than a society without any standards
in other words, i understand your point, but you don't understand mine
yes, you need standards. but what i am asking for are standards that take in actual truth of human nature. for example: "teenagers: use protection when you have sex." that's a standard, and it recognizes teenagers will have sex no matter what you do. and when they do have sex, they won't get stds and get pregnant
but a social conservative will say: "teenagers: just don't have sex." but then they do anyway, that's what teenagers do. and because you haven't prepared for it, you get teenagers with clamydia and babies. in fact, in traditionally social conservative areas of the united states, teenage birthrates are higher than more liberal areas. what does that tell you? just look at sarah palin's daughter: my point is right up there for all to see about the failure of social conservative teachings: it doesn't stop teenagers from having sex. the desire for teenagers to explore their budding sexuality is a hardwired biological desire that no morality will ever overcome, or ever should try to overcome. if sarah palin had liberal leanings, she would have given her daughter a condom, and there would be no teenage mother up on stage with sarah palin screaming as a symbol for anyone with a true moral compass: "HYPOCRISY"
the point is NOT to have no standards. lack of responsibility, accountability, and outright evil trangressive criminality are horrible, and yes, are worse than social conservativism, i agree with that. a society with horrible crude abusive social conservative standards IS better than no standards at all
what i am asking is not to excuse the inexcusable, to have no standards, what i am asking is to have the RIGHT standards, which are often more complex, involve recognizing certain aspects of human nature you don't want to admit, and incorporate those realizations into your principles
for example: it is not lack of responsibility, lack of accountability, or criminal transgressive behavior when two men or two women have sex. so why prosecute people who do so? why tell teenagers sex is bad? homosexuality or teenagers having sex IS NOT WRONG. but social conservatism tells us they ARE bad. that is homosexuality is criminal. that teenagers having sex is irresponsible. but the genuine truth is that homosexuality is COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK and that teenagers having sex IS COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK
you look at me and see someone who is trying to destroy morality. no: i am making morality BETTER. we NEED morality. what we don't need is simpleminded social conservative morality, we NEED BETTER MORE INTELLIGENT MORALITY
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I took Texas history back in the 60's, and once I had the chance to read some real history, I was shocked to discover how dishonest and misleading the curriculum had been, mostly in ways that seemed designed to promote racism.
Sure thing buddy, it was about a culture clash. One culture favored the enslavement of humans based on racial differences and one did not. But really, you must be right, it was a clash of moral equals. Uh huh.
Which explains why Christian Conservatives would prefer to diminish the role of Thomas Jefferson as he seems to support this so called "soft anarchy".
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810
Keep trolling. Who can cite an actual argument made by the board on a change they're making on the curriculum? Know why they're talking less about Jefferson? Read.
I bet a lot of people on here are disappointed there is no mention of how America under Democratic leadership is finally moving beyond the radical Capitalist experiment.
> (5) Joseph McCarthy's crusade via the H.U.A.C. is generally acknowledged as a bad thing, even by
> the most right-wing people. But it's also correct to acknowledge that it was reactionary, and
> didn't originate from one man's mental instability.
Anyone who even passes this one on without correcting it loses all right to speak about 20th Century history.
1. McCarthy had exactly zero involvement with the HUAC. Think for a few milliseconds. --HOUSE-- UnAmerican Affairs Committee. --SENATOR-- Joseph McCarthy. Right.
2. While the Progressives won the first round, mostly because Sen. McCarthy totally failed to realize just how far the rabbit hole went, History has vindicated pretty much every accusation he made. The records were ordered kept under Senate seal for fifty years but that has expired and the truth is out there. I'd recommend _Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies_ by M. Stanton Evans. Lots of primary sources, photocopies of formerly classified documents, etc. Or if you want a fun lighter read of the same material you could just grab Ann Coulter's _Treason_, which is probably more available in brick & morter stores.
Democrat delenda est
It's not spin at all. There are more people without health care coverage by choice in the US then there are because of resources. The US doesn't abandon most of it's poor population, they get handouts like free medical coverage and so on. Between the welfare role and medicare, the US was already paying for roughly 60% of the non-elective medical treatments i the US.
It doesn't really matter who can afford coverage or not or if you purchase insurance or not because you still have the choice of who pays for what. Also, in the US, it's illegal for a hospital to deny life saving treatment on the grounds of someone's ability to pay. So no, it's not the insurance company taking on the role of the death panel unless you specifically allow them to. Talk about spin.....
Take that into contrast with the system in the UK for instance. Suppose there is some miracle drug that cures 50% of people with a specific condition during trials. Now gov' health won't cover the drug or treatment because it isn't established, it's expensive, and the results are 50/50. If you as a citizen of that country, secure funding for the drug and seek treatment outside their health system in hopes of being cured, they will refuse to ever treat you or pay for your treatment for that illness again. SO potentially, here is Johny, a 30 year old Cancer patient who gets his care from the government, he heard about a break through drug and has the opportunity to try it because a rich uncle died and left him with just enough money to pay for the treatment, and if it doesn't work, he will be broke and without coverage because the gob'ment got their feelings hurt when someone attempted to better their life without them.
But hey, I guess that's better then then the free systems where the patient still has some choices.
Decisions like this are likely to improve our economy, living standards and interest in science in the long term.
Of course, I should tell you... that I'm an offshore contractor for US companies living in Argentina.
What the fuck have you been smoking? If you are in France you get 30 days of holiday per year, free healthcare, a longer life-expectancy, and a better quality of living. You are also less likely to be shot, less likely to have to shoot someone, and more likely to drive a much better car to a much better job.
But please - keep jerking yourself off over your flag. It'll definitely work.
If your post is correct, why did the south secede based on just the expectation that the next president would admit new states into the Union as free states?
I'm sure many foreigners might jump on in disagreement if they look at how it was passed. There wasn't enough time to read and comprehend the bill before the vote.
HR 3200 was introduced OVER A YEAR before the final bill passed. HR3950 was passed in December of '09, over 4 MONTHS before the final vote. To claim that there "wasn't enough time to read" the bill is complete horse shit.
A lot of the rejection of the health care bill has to do with how it was created and passed. The current administration ran on being open but this thing was created in some back room deal and all members of his party was expected to bless it without even knowing what was in it.
And the only reason for all that backroom debating crap was because of people, on both sides, toeing the party line and the Republican threats of filibuster. If it hadn't required 60 votes to override the Republican filibuster, a lot of those back room deals wouldn't have been necesary. But since the Dems had to effectively buy off a hand full of legislatures who were all "the 60th vote", we wound up with a worse bill.
That the Republican party been willing to take part in the democratic process, the health insurance reform bill would have been significantly better.
Hell, one of the main claims about covering children with preexisting conditions wasn't even going to take effect until 2014
Which was due to the REPUBLICAN introduction of the mandate. The purpose of the mandate is to keep people from abuisng the preexisting condition rule, and so the two were linked. And since the mandate doesn't kick in till 2014, neither does the preexisting coverage rule.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
They never took anyone's rights away after 9/11. You must be confused with the expansion of powers that effect only a small amount of people engaged in a small amount of activities after 9/11.
Anyways, here is a link to it
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/51610 one of them, I'm sure your google finger can find links to the tricks they used to get it passed and how debate was stifled.
You really don't understand the word "social" do you? I think you'll find most people around the world are generous, and most western countries have volunteer armies that get dropped into hell-hole nations around the world. The amount of ignorance dripping from your post is staggering.
This is why the right in the US screams "socialism" when they don't like something. It also causes sufficient cognitive dissonance that you can convince these people that someone can be both a socialist and a fascist.
Question the separation of church and state?
If you want the church in your state, you deserve the state in your church.
You might want to rethink your cunning plan, cowboy.
--
BMO
It doesn't matter what the Tea party "stands for" if you consistently pick as your public face, the dumbest (and otherwise worst) people this decade has seen. Until that changes, don't be surprised if no one takes your platform seriously. As laudable as it may be in the abstract - it is obvious what your leaders stand for and no one doubts that in the end, abstract manifestos will be prostituted to the whims of those leaders.
Where's any actual data that supports your assertion that the USA innovates more because it's more right-leaning?
That's not at all an argument in favor of the "living document" mode of legal interpretation. It's an argument in favor of amending and updating the laws with the times, which is certainly what we should be doing. The idea of a "living [legal] document" that can mean a different thing now than it did 200 years ago without amendment is absurd, since it does, in fact, mean that we can interpret the laws however we please. As everyone knows, however, when every interpretation is true, none is true. Good progressives should step away from legal nihilism and simply advocate rewriting laws when we need to.
Sadly there is a large segment of the population that believe the United States is a Christian nation because of things like "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust" but they never actually studied any real history and don't realize those statements are in our government because they put them there not the people who formed this nation.
So lets fix our Pledge of Allegiance and money. Remove these phrases that were never intended by the founding fathers.
I want my country back!
Have gnu, will travel.
If I recall correctly, the pre-Cold War version is:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I'm still not a fan of making children repeat loyalty oaths as a kind of mantra to begin every (school) day, no matter what the words are.
Property is theft.
"Tea Party supporters are
I apologize. I should have been clearer when I referred to the "public face of the tea party". Obviously, that can be interpreted to mean the caricatures of bigoted, pidgin English bearing sign wielders you see all the time. While such parasites (who hang on to the movement and make a mockery of it) are a huge concern, that was not what I was referring to.
My idea of the "public face of the tea party" is rabid, unintelligent buffoons like Palin, Beck, Bachmann and that breed of blowhards. In other words, the tea party's most prominent leaders. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the rank and file of the party is exactly as you describe. It is a pity that the lower echelon nobodies in the GOP have latched onto this (originally) grassroots movement and have completely sacrificed it just to ensure they stay in power.
As long as the loyal cadre of its supporters continue to let it be hijacked by the very few (but very prominent) bigots that are trying to break away from the GOP and build their own little toy power base, the tea party's stated manifesto and philosophy remains meaningless to me. With these clowns (again, referring to their leaders and the candidates they have fielded) in power, it's just business as usual - with a lot more rhetoric and lot less action than we have now.
If the tea party is serious about wanting to break away from dirty politics and truly want change, they have to field a leadership that's better than the incumbents. So far, it's been the exact opposite.
In fact, if their core is as educated and wealthy as you say they are, I am even more baffled at the simians they have chosen as their leaders (and hence their 'public face'). And as we all know, no matter how noble the grassroots supporters, it is their front man in congress or the white house who determines what really happens. As a voter, I will be voting (or not) for the candidates they field and as long as someone like Palin continues to be their poster child for what they stand for, I will be happy to take them at their word and do everything in my power to ensure that they remain an irrelevant minority in the political process.
If they wise up and distance themselves from the prominent assholes that are riding them for their own gain, I will be more than happy to check out their manifesto and even sign on if I find it acceptable. Until then, as a person concerned with consequences more than intentions, any "Contracts from America" are irrelevant. Call it a philosophical boycott if you will. You want the people to listen to you and take you seriously? Then top acting like battered spouses and develop at least a modicum of control within your own party - above all, don't let the old school leaders dominate the new one. Exercise some control over who your leaders are instead of just surrendering your leadership to the first media blowhard or failed politician that comes your way. Use the Ron Pauls - tell the Palins and Bachmanns to GTFO.
It is starting to look as if this might actually happen so I'm [very cautiously] hopeful [for example, THIS and THAT]. Perhaps Rand Paul's victory may signal a shift that the idiots are no longer welcome in the Tea Party, and wouldn't that be awesome?
The declaration of independence includes prayers to Christ.
Oh? Care to quote something specific?
That is what "divine providence" refers to,
Nope, that's Deism. It's not an atheist document, by any means, but it's far from a Christian document, either.
Also the phrase "endowed by our creator" is a reference to God,
Yep. Still Deist.
the christian one
Nope. You apparently don't know what deism is.
there weren't very many Jews or Muslims
Do you honestly believe those are the only other religions?
The phrase "judge of the world" is a direct reference to Christ since Christ is the only religious figure addressed by that phrase in religious texts.
You might have me there, but it's also quite clearly a phrase which could easily apply to any monotheistic god, or, indeed, a few from polytheistic religions -- Anubis, in particular, is the judge of where you go in the afterlife.
Does this make the US a "christian nation?" Maybe, maybe not.
Definitely not. If it was in the constitution, you'd have a tiny sliver of a case for saying that, but the Declaration is hardly a legal document, nor is it the foundation of our current nation. Or have you forgotten the Articles of Confederation?
it certainly wasn't meant to be a theocracy or an atheist nation.
No, but it was meant to be a secular one.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
There is no such thing as free healthcare!
There is no such thing as "free" anything. Everything has a price. If you are to diminish "free" so that no one anywhere paid anything for it, then "free" has no meaning at all. Since there's no point in having a word with no meaning, I have to believe you to be incorrect. It is "free" in the sense that you don't pay for it when you get it.
in France they pay for it as well as for other social services through taxes.
I pay more in the US to cover a few people as they pay in France to cover everyone. It may not be your "free" but it is cheaper and with better cover than the US. By far.
Learn to love Alaska
Just because you think they shouldn't have something you want for yourself or others doesn't make it yours to give away.
Your straw man is on fire, but let me add a little gasoline to him. George is a roofer, risking his life to put roofs on houses. Phil is a stockbroker; in essense, a riverboat gambler without the boat. But Phil pays capital gains tax while Grorge pays income tax, and Phil pays a lower rate than George. This is unfair and plain wrong; progress is fixing that inequality.
Phil does not creat wealth, but George does. We are encouraging the lazy-ass gambler while penalizing the hard working wealth creator for his work. Progress is doing away with the CGT and replacing it with income tax; GRADUATED income tax. Government is necessary, and has to be funded, and the rich benefit from overnment far more than the lower classes. It only makes sense that those who get the most benefit pay the most.
You talk of the "the product of ones [sic] labor", but the rich do no labor; they direct the labor. Trading stocks is NOT labor, running a corporation is NOT labor.
Asking the government to do it for you is just theft via mob mentality.
When your house catches fire, don't call the government-run fire department, put the damned thing out yourself. When you get mugged, don't call the government run police department. And stay the hell off my government-built roads, hypocrite.
If you are so anti-wealth
I have no idea where you think I'm "anti-wealth", except as a knee-jerk Rush Limbaugh reactionary who reads into statements things that aren't there. Compared to what a McDonalds' fry cook makes I'm wealthy, and compared to what my friend who owns a bar and construction company earns I'm poor, and I'm fine with both. But I'm NOT fine with IBM and Kodak paying no taxes. I'm not fine with a CEO who nearly bankrupts the company getting million dollar bonuses, plus tax breaks. I'm not fine with the fact that the only way a rich powerful man goes to prison is if a richer, more powerful man puts hum there. I'm not fine with offshore tax havens that allow the rich to legally dodge paying taxes. I'm not fine with someone from another state (or even foreign country) having greater access to "my" elected representatives than I do.
I'm not fine with McDonald's and WalMart benefitting from their workers getting food stamps as a way to not have to pay them a living wage. Note that for the poor (but not the rich) to get any kind of government help, they have to be employed or disabled, so "helping the poor" actually benefits the rich.
Progress is fixing what's wrong with America, true conservatives want to protect what's right with her. Neocons want neither.
Free Martian Whores!