Slashdot Mirror
Utah To Teach USA is a Republic, Not a Democracy
0ryan0 writes "Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a 'Democracy' would have 'Democrat' in it." The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utopia!
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
P.S. Registered Democrat speaking here.
I've been saying the same thing for a long time... Just look at the electorate system, etc... Obviously not a democracy in any useful meaning of the word.
- These characters were randomly selected.
because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.
This is completely unsupported by the linked article. Either include the proper links to back up your statements, or stop editorializing in your submissions.
the coolest club on
We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.
We're all full up on Crazy here...
I mean, the USA IS a republic... a (supposedly) democratically elected republic, but a republic nonetheless. Maybe we should leave the terms democratic and republic alone and rename the political parties. How about lazy jackasses and fat ugly elephants instead?
Even the founders said so...
"AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1101b.asp
"I saw an old couple being visited by their children, and all their grandchildren too. The old couple weren't screwed up. And neither were their kids or their grandkids. And I don't know. You tell me. This whole dream, was it wishful thinking? Was I just fleeing reality like I know I'm liable to do? But me and Ed, we can be good too. And it seemed real. It seemed like us and it seemed like, well, our home. If not Arizona, then a land not too far away. Where all parents are strong and wise and capable and all children are happy and beloved. I don't know. Maybe it was Utah. "
Since the U.S. is indeed a Representative Republic and not a Democracy (which the founders despised), why is this an issue. I thought schools were supposed to teach facts?
That is the most frequently abused red herring.
People can work on more than one issue at a time; in fact, it's the only way things ever get finished.
Yes, and for centuries the Jedi defended the Republic. That was before the dark times.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
The reasons behind it may be corrupt, but the United States is actually a republic, not a democracy.
"Congratulations gentlemen, you have a republic, if you can keep it"
-Benjamin Franklin,
at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787
... 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system. The US is absolutely a constitutional republic with representative democracy - an attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships.
1) They're right, we are a republic.
2) At no point does the article say anything about not liking the word "Democrat."
Has /. become so political as to stoop to this level? This isn't Digg. This isn't $POLITICALBLOGSITE.
We are not a Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. The vote of someone in Montana (less populous state) counts more than mine in Texas, since Electoral College votes are allotted per x citizens, plus 2 more per state, no matter it's population
From the article:
"But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.
“This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said."
We are a representative republic which means that we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. A true democracy would have the populous vote on every decision the government makes which is far beyond manageable. I don't think Utah is doing this because of the word "democrat" or the word "republican" but instead to teach our children a better understanding of how our government is truly configured. Take the partisanship out of it and it's an accurate and important detail.
"Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein
This is neither news for nerds nor anything that matters.
Please excuse my ignorance, I'm from the EU, but I thought the US was a republic? At least that is what Wikipedia and the CIA World Factbook claim.
Also, what does this have to do with "unemployment, finance and social service?" Are state government unable to pass any law when those things are outside a certain threshold?
Hmm and all this time I thought we actually were a Republic.. The pledge of allegiance even says so (note the to the republic part): "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The words 'democracy' and 'democrat' and nearly identical. On the other hand, only 1/2 of the words in "Constitutional Republic" are nearly-identical to a political party. 1/2 1. Argument settled.
Hate much?
there's no evidence he was illiterate, and there's no evidence from the story that the recommendations are because the word democrat is offensive. The article makes no mention of the reason behind it, other than perhaps ACCURACY.
Any time somone in the world feels slighted even when its made up. That person in is by human nature determined to lash out and do whatever is necessary to destroy the validity of the argument at hand. The fact of the matter is the United States is a republic all of our founding documents say so. God sakes can you imagine what a pain being a true democracy would be imagine if everyone had to vote on every law.... we would have the shortest set of law books on the planet because no one would agree on anything except no taxes and free government services.
From TFA:
HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism.
Is it just me, or does that sound a just a little bit more defensible than the spin in the summary?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
The comment 'because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.' is not supported by the article.
Also, the legislators are correct: The U.S. is a representative democracy at best, only touching on true democracy during the rare referendum. The issue, as reported by the article, is that educators think that as they're already teaching the differences between different forms of government, that the law would merely make it harder to do their jobs. ...I don't suppose the entire article here can be down-modded?
As English is not my native language, may I correct you English? :-)
It must be an utopia!
My signature is in the cloud.
The rule of the people is a public matter
Because nowhere in the article does it say anything about "Democrat". "HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday. " So 7 democratic senators from the state agreed. This says a lot more about 0ryan than Utah!
It couldn't be that Utah chose to teach that the U.S. is a republic because it IS. No, it has to be because the word "democracy" looks like the word "democrat." Those wacky conservatives! Always teaching truth for the wrong reasons!
.. and just as important, and relevant to Slashdot readers, if not more so..
The governor signed a bill to limit access to government records...
Now, I really don't give a shit what happens in Utah, but we should demand that all their representatives are removed from all national committees in Congress. His name is unmentionable..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utopia!
I searched for the 'like' button when I read that. I haven't had enough coffee yet.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Firstly, the US is a republic, so what's the issue? Secondly, why the fuck is this in YRO, as this decision affects us online in absolutely no way whatsoever? Doesn't Slashdot have a politics tag?
Let's see, how does it go again?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American, and to the... ah yes, Republic for which it stands...
...the US is not a democracy.
I was suprised to find that you are right about TFA.
Then. . .
But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.
“This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said.
Ah, yes. That's the stuff.
But maybe we could consider going out on a limb here and teaching the kiddies about systems of government rather than telling them to memorize the correct label(Which, unless you are cynical enough to say "Plutocratic empire with democratic republican ceremonial elements", is "Republic).
Hey Kids! Athens was a "Democracy". Rome, pre empire, was a "Republic"; both looked absolutely fuck-all like our government. How can this be? Let's talk about the differences between a "Republic" and a "Democracy" and what sorts of variations are possible within the broad heading of each... We may have to skip cramming names and dates for a week; but I think you'll learn something...
And hey, while we are at it, let's remember to mention that(depending on which historians you talk to), there have been at least five reasonably distinct periods during which different political parties, with different names(in some cases quite confusing, since they are the same as today's; but mean different things) vied for control... Raise your hands everyone who knows that the Democrats used to be the southern conservative party, and the Republicans the northern liberals? And that there was a "Democractic-Republican" party, (arguably the one whose name actually corresponded most closely with our governmental form), that hasn't existed in almost 200 years?
Wow, the WHARGARBL is strong in this thread....
Never mind the actual fact that the form of Government here in the United States is a Representative Republic.
Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...
I mean, what next? Are we going to force teachers to teach that 2+2=4? What of little Johnny's self esteem? Shouldn't we validate his feelings that 2 + 2 = Cookie?
This is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.
The definition of republic from Wikipedia is: A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government.[1][2] The term is generally also understood to describe a government where most decisions are made with reference to established laws, rather than the discretion of a head of state, and therefore monarchy is today generally considered to be incompatible with being a republic. I think that people who say this are interested in changing from universal suffrage to "some significant portion of them". The same sort of people who spout this sort of stuff will often be heard to say that things were better when only those who owned land could vote. That is the presupposition hidden in this meme--disenfranchisement. Since we're quickly moving to a society where the minorities are a majority and where only the bankers and a few rich (white) people own land, this is simply advocating a new form of apartheid through the back door. For those of you who find liberal or Democrat a dirty word, be aware that college students can guess party affiliation from a head shot 80% of the time. That means that liberal and conservative reflect basic personality traits, and it takes all kinds.
Since you cite Wikipedia, then you share my confidence in its reliability for things like Slashdot debates. Therefore you should concede the point by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States and seeing that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a "Representative Democracy".
The US is a republic. It is not a full democracy, though it does espouse many democratic principles. At best, it is a representative democracy, which history tells us was the intention of the framers.
Most of the founding fathers did not trust pure democracy (i.e., rule by the direct vote of the people), because they knew that public opinion could be fickle. While elected officials were instituted to represent their constituents, they were also considered a check/balance on the ebb and flow of public opinion: elected officials are duty bound to protect the Constitution and the Republic ahead of their duty to enact the will of the people. Where those two duties are in conflict, elected officials should act in a manner that aligns with their first duty.
The electoral college system is another example of how the founders intended a reasoned people to be able to intervene apart from the direct vote. Sadly, the electoral college is now a bastardization of its original intent, with separate groups of partisan electors selected to serve depending on which candidate wins, rather than an independent body that was intended to ratify--or void--the popular vote. There have been times in history when electors have voted for candidates other than those that won the popular vote, and I believe the founders intended that to be part of the game.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
I'd say that maybe clarifying the difference between a pure democracy and a republic for students isn't such a bad idea, although I do suspect that there's more to this behind the scenes than TFA states outright.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
I am pleased they are going to actually educate children using correct language. Words HAVE MEANINGS or at least they should.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It's not April 1 yet, is it? This has to be a joke.
People don't seem to realize that people have absolutely no vote on what the United States of America does. Only state legislatures have such a thing. The USA Federal Government speaks with the states; the legislature is elected by the people, but does whatever the hell it really wants. They have no obligation to listen to the voice of the people, thus not a democracy.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Eric Wright party. Its not the right or the left, because you have that W in there... Not to be confused or associated with Dubya in any way, sort, or form.
The quotation from the Bill's sponsor sure does its best to make the case that the(technically correct) assertion that the US is a republic is being (re)emphasized in the school curriculum by special intervention of the state legislature for reasons other than a learned concern for the dissemination of accurate information...
"But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum. “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said."
Yo, Mark, I love that supporting evidence there. I can definitely see how having the legislature intervene to insure that politically sensitive issues are handled in a doctrinally correct manner will save the kiddies from socialism. Perhaps we can appoint a Political Commissar for each classroom, to make sure that our freedom remains ideologically pure?
The constitution grants democratic rights to the people. It's not really a stretch to call it a democracy.
Put it this way: If the USA isn't a democracy, then there is no democracy in the world.
On the other hand, only 1/2 of the words in "Constitutional Republic" are nearly-identical to a political party.
Which half? I see both a Constitution Party and a Republican Party.
For formally recognizing that democracy has no place in the USA.
I don't exactly understand what you're saying but, the exponential growth of the U.S. Government IS because of spending ourselves into debt. Now, it is beginning to bite us in the ass.
"In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society..." - Sen. Palpatine (R) Utah
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
For a bit more precision, I've heard it as a Constitutional Republic.
The USA is (supposed to be) a Constitutional Republic. But there are political forces at work right now which are trying very hard to undermine that.
Australia and Canada are examples of Representative Democracies.
The differences are subtle, and may not be readily apparent to a typical USA layperson, especially given the low quality of public education in the USA anymore the past 4 decades.
An example a a pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
You guys live in a strange place.... You have to sue the state for accurate education?!
Make that a "Freedom overlord", and let's go for it.
Why can't
it's an errand boy sent by grocery clerks* to collect a bill.
*multinational corporations
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
We vote on the representatives. Hence, democratic republic, as the US is frequently called.
I always find this argument hilarious because people act as if "democracy" and "republic" are terms that have one extremely precise meaning each, and are mutually exclusive.
Etymologically, "republic" comes from the Latin phrase "res publica", which means "common thing" or "common substance". It was meant to contrast the Roman state, which was the possession of the entire Roman citizen body, with foreign kingdoms that were (in the view of the Romans) "owned" by a single despot. The English phrase "commonwealth" is a more or less literal translation. (The Romans continued to use this name for their state well after the oligarchic system we call the "Roman republic" was replaced by the one-man rule we call the "Roman empire," by the way.)
Etymologically, "democracy" comes from a Greek phrase that means "people power", or, perhaps more accurately, "citizen body power" ("demos" referring to the body of people with citizen rights, not the population as a whole). It was used as a term of abuse even back in the days of ancient Athens, when the state went back and forth between various systems of government, some of which involves large-scale participation of the citizen body in day-to-day decisions, others not so much.
The two words have been used to describe an incredible variety of political systems over the past 2000 years or so. The modern use of the word "republic" probably emerged in the late 18th/early 19th century, when it came to specifically denote states that weren't monarchies (as this was a live question in that era). The modern use of the word "democracy" is similarly broad, denoting a system of government where the citizens have a significant say in how the country is run. Since there are virtually no instances of states run by direct democracy, the term is understood as being wholly compatible with representative government, in which citizens elect officials to run the state on their behalf.
You can have states that are democracies but not republics (e.g., the UK and Sweden), that are republics and not democracies (e.g., Syria, Belarus), that are both (e.g., the U.S., France), or that are neither (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Brunei).
After the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
There's a good article here that goes into the real difference. It's not about which party is in charge.
So, what do you want to put your trust in? A law, or a crowd?
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Perhaps a "Chief Freedom Officer"? We really should run this classroom like a business...
I mean, what next? Are we going to force teachers to teach that 2+2=4? What of little Johnny's self esteem? Shouldn't we validate his feelings that 2 + 2 = Cookie?
"Pepsi?"
"Partial credit"
In the taxonomy of governments, ours is a republic by virtue of our constitution as a moderator for any government action. There is democracy in the world, but the USA is not, technically, a democracy because our elected leaders remain bound by our constitution.
Sarcasm aside, Jesus's father was a carpenter who could afford to travel. He was a solid middle-class citizen, therefore. And this being in Israel, not the majority of the Middle East, being a solid middle class citizen meant that your son learnt to read. We are talking here about a culture that elevated the printed word to a very high level, not one like Rome that tried to reserve literacy to the Patrician class.
In addition, the NT does not describe Jesus as a god, nor did he claim to be (or the Gospels wouldn't have got written.)
Personally, I'm a complete agnostic theologically, but lazy religion-bashing (with the smallest scent of anti-semitism) still annoys me.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
This summary is a bit off base. From the article:
"HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. "
Where does it say "force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic". Sounds like they just want to be sure the students are aware of all forms of government.
Yeah, and Obama wants to put $50B into high speed trains when:
1) He not only didn't get Bush's spending under control, but increased it.
2) He knows damn well that the American public has no broad interest in high speed trains (thus it would be Amtrak 2.0, at best).
This diversion at least doesn't add insult to injury by costing a ton of money Utah doesn't have and should take a committee in the legislature all of about half an hour to push out the appropriate language for a general vote.
High Speed trains are a necessary transportation feature in the future of the US. Plain and simple. The United States growth rate is quite high for a developed nation. We have a lot of suburban sprawl. Combine those two facts and think about the outcome: When our current airports reach their capacity, where will new airports be built? In Chicago, the selected site for the next airport is 50 miles from downtown! Go look at a map and see if you can find any space near Los Angeles or New York City for another airport.
The high speed rail plans are using mostly already existing railroad right-of-ways. They can be built where people already live.
To all those who have commented about because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it did you not notice that Republican has republic in it. Unfortunately, CmdrTaco quoted someone's editorial comment and most people seem to be reading the quote as fact.
insert inflammatory comment here!
A number of states allow for laws passed by ballot. As for "obligation", legislators and government officials are subject to most of the laws of the land, including laws against treason and ethics/anti-bribery laws that apply to government officials. So they have as much obligation as democratic government officials typically have. The democracy part comes from elections where the highest ranking government officials can be shuffled in and out.
Right on. Because it's absolutely impossible to form a government that has aspects of both!
Given that he's noted as reading the Torah in the temple I doubt he was illiterate. Jews have always had a pretty large emphasis on being able to read. Also he was the son of a carpenter, which would have probably been a fairly well-paid profession in those days. Odds are he would have had a fairly comfortable life growing up.
Honestly, this must be the worst submission and summary ever. I read the article, and nowhere does it claim that this legislation has been created because "Democracy" has "Democrat" in it. Besides, it doesn't unless you spell it "Democratcy". Then we have the last line of the summary, that argues a false dilemma: Utah must solve all of its other problems before it sets educational curricula. Setting the educational curricula needs to be done all the time regardless of whatever else is going on, and it seems that this legislation is setting a standard for how forms of government are to be taught. From my experience, most students aren't even being taught about the different forms of government discussed by Aristotle, and this legislation sets that minimal standard.
Please everyone, use your brains, and stop witch hunting.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It just depends on what level you're referring to. At the state level it is largely majority-rule thus democratic. At the national level, it is not purely democratic style majority rule; it is a Republic form of representation for each state. It is true that all states are Federally organized as equals among each other. But that's more a question of how they are organized not how much voting influence each has.
All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.
Uh - where's the suit?
Why not, he's not any nuttier than a large percentage of our elected officials.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
I don't know if the high speed trains are designed to be used for passengers, or for cargo. I can agree that interest in a high speed passenger train is pretty low, but it's a hell of a lot more environmentally friendly to ship goods by rail than by semi truck. If we can make transportation by rail faster, it would be more attractive for companies to ship by rail.
Well.. it is.
Republic : we elect people to go make decisions for us.
Democracy: everyone votes on everything.
Democracy is kinda like communism, it sounds good on paper but it's unworkable on any large scale.
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
Uh, citizens vote directly for congressmen and senators -- they have as much say or legislation as they do on the state level. Citizens of the United States of subject to both sovereignties of their state and the federal government,
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
And based on estimated illiteracy rates among bastard carpenters in the region at the time, yeah, he was probably illiterate.
Similarly, he also probably wasn't white like the bulk of his icons make him appear to be. You know, those "graven images" that lead people astray that was mentioned in some book somewhere...
So you may be right. If in reality the Senate and the House are not elected by the ordinary people but emerge by agreement of powerful pressure groups, such as rich individuals and large corporations, the US is (just) a Republic. But if, every few years, the ordinary people vote and can remove and replace those senators and representatives - well, that means that the people (demos, in Greek) have political power (kratein, in Greek.) And our word democracy therefore simply means "people power"; it does not define exactly how that power is exercised.
I imagine most Americans at least think their country is a democratic republic.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Jews have always had a pretty large emphasis on being able to read.
No, they haven't. That's a relatively modern thing, which evolved long after AD 70 (when modern Talmudic Judiasim was effectively born). Country Jews in Jesus's time were nothing like modern Jews.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Its seems like a democracy is someplace where I could vote for/against the people who make the important decisions regarding my country. But I cannot do that. The important people are on committees in the House and Senate that are occupied by reps from other states. The important people are hired by people appointed by the president. I didnt vote for them, and during his second term, I cannot vote against the president having a third term. The important people are in the judiciary which are immune to any form of voting. And when it comes time for my actual representatives to vote, they are voting on a document that addresses so many different areas of law that the document is patently indecipherable. And then after the House and Senate vote on a bill, the bill can be changed by some schmuck before it goes to the President, and from then on its the law.
So they are right: Its not a democracy if most of the decisions are made by people that I cannot vote for or against.
It only became a Federation after we discovered the warp drive... :)
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
We don't need to cut spending, we need to increase it. Austerity only hurts the people, it never helps.
We need to increase taxes to somewhere around Reagan era tax levels and close tax loopholes for mega corps.
Of course, I'm dreaming, but, hey, never let a little reality get in the way of dreaming.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Please provide your evidence that 1st century Galilean carpenters were illiterate before continuing to participate in this discussion.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
You're confusing modern Judaism with what can be more accurately called "the Hebrew religion" of Jesus's time. He was a country carpenter in the first century, decades before before the Temple was destroyed.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why don't they just start telling that the USA is not a society and that it contains no communities? Because those would imply socialism and communism! *waves evil Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin handpuppets*
Nitpicking. The word "democracy" comes from Greek, while "republic" comes from Latin. They mean the same thing: rule of the people.
...they passed the law because it's true. The Federal Government *is* a Republic, and not a democracy (although some the states are partially democracies because they vote on binding referendums). "Republicans" and "Democrats" don't have anything to do with that fact.
"utopia" is from the Greek ou, not, topos, place. It means "nowhere". And so it should read "It must be utopia",
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
FTA: "Opponents of the bill argued that the concepts within it are already being taught and that the Legislature shouldn’t get involved in curriculum matters."
Every time I wish I would've become a teacher, an article like this comes along to remind me just what a messed up profession it is. Add me to the list of opponents.
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
this is a retarded non-story.
A republic is a democracy based on a founding document. The founding fathers considered us a republic.
They're using their grammar skills there.
And Chewbacca was a wookiee on Endor! That just doesn't make sense!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
at all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah
The solution is quite simple - so simple, I don't know why all the other states haven't figured it out already. Apparently only Utah has smart people living in it these days:
With those problems addressed, what else can we fix for you?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
More correctly, the US is a democratic republic, but due to influence from the names of the German Democratic Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and so on, the phrase has become irrevocably associated with Communism and so is very rarely heard in reference to any capitalist democracy.
...to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands...
And so continues the take over of the US by the corrupt political parties. Soon the ruling party will outlaw the other party. They've already made it practically illegal to be an independent.
I want more choices
The funny thing is, they're right, we are a republic and not a democracy. In a republic, you elect representatives to cast votes on your behalf. In a democracy, you vote for everything.
but I doubt many would want to live under one. We have a good example of one which hits the news a lot, California. Their system for sponsoring referendums to state wide voting is a great example of why purely democratic processes can have outcomes that are not well received or in some cases down right spiteful.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Source for this claim? You're assigning a rabbinic Judaism to Jesus that post-dates him by several centuries. At his time congregation had to gather in the temple to have the Torah read to them, even in the Soferim (probably 8th century) there's suggestion that some villages contained only a single literate individual.
Never said it couldn't be but the keyword "Accuracy".
More accurately, the correct term for the United States Government is "Federation". Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.
Honestly, if you are going to teach our system of Government to our children don't do a half-ass job and get the wrong on the fundamental level of the Nation's actual political structure and gloss it over with the political structure on the state level.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
I grant you 2 future mod points for this, though I haven't any in stock today.
<script>alert("I never liked JavaScript, really; it just seemed a bad idea.");</script>
This kind of thing was grist to the mill of advanced 19th century Biblical criticism, which itself derived from the kind of tests historians use to decide if texts are based on actual eye-witness accounts.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Of course the socialist minister who wrote the pledge would call us a republic. The "pledge" wasn't even official until 1942, so why would you ever consider it as a worthy source of what kind of government our founders created?
I have to wonder why people are so eager to remove remove references of democracy from our government. Oh that's right, these are republicans, whose goal has long been for money to decide our representatives in the republic and they have largely succeeded. Yet we still have elections, in which we democratically elect our representatives in the republic. If we remove the democracy, we will still be a republic, and yet all will be lost.
Maybe if they still allowed the Pledge of Allegiance, people would remember that the US is a republic. I don't think there are any actual "democracies" in the world. Almost most all are representative or parliamentary. No politician would willingly surrender power to a true democracy.
It's a government mandate. I think "Freedom Czar" would be more appropriate, in a surreal kind of way.
Slashdot, meet non-story. Non-story, meet Slashdot.
What a waste of time, passing such a useless and ridiculous law. I live in Utah, and actually, it's a great place to live, and one of the most financially sound states.
As a registered Republican (who is quite conservative with some libertarian leanings), I wonder when I see laws pass like this. What were they thinking? What a waste of effort.
This representative democracy, democratic republic isn't a pure republic, nor a direct democracy.
But why should they be legislating micromanagement of teachers? Please, let my local school district and school board do their jobs. Let the local parents keep their ears as to what their children are learning, and give local, direct feedback to the teachers, administrators, and school board. Stay out of the way, Legislature.
All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.
That's what these pedants should be required to teach.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Yet again another worthless Slashdot article. I can read FARk for this stuff.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
A Utahn here. Ah, the right-wing "republic not democracy" canard rides again. Quibbling over semantics, proponents fallaciously cast the concepts as mutually exclusive, ignoring fundamental participatory organs such as commissions, boards, and citizen committees. Besides, the Greek roots for 'republic' (res publica) means 'public thing' or 'common good.' But to Utah Sens. Buttars and Dayton and Reps. Sandstrom and Wimmer, isn't that socialism?
Most of the responses here show exactly why teaching that the United States is a Republic is a very good idea!
The US educational system is in drastic need of an overhaul! I find it entirely unsurprising that home schooled kids do better on standardized tests than the products of the public education system.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
In the purist definition we are now a social democracy. Both republicans and democrats are socialists being that they support and vote to to continue social security and medicare and we have a redistributive tax policy and have had for as long as most people currently alive have been voting. So the hypocrisy of the socialism label is astounding.
Most Americans are socialist too. I don't see any mad rush to give back social security checks or turn down medicare for a free market solution.
Assuming that there's any accuracy at all to the stories in the Bible (a big assumption I'll grant you) he was likely literate. He's often called "Rabbi" in the text and has a much greater understanding of the Torah and supporting literature than an illiterate man would be likely to have. Joseph is typically portrayed as a very prosperous carpenter, and a leader in his community. The whole bit with the manger wasn't becasue they couldn't afford a better room, there just weren't any available. Part of the reason it's considered so odd that he makes friends with fisherman, thieves, and laborers is becasue he wasn't one himself.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
The US is an ambidextrous, paper-based, analablutionitarian government. Any attempt to label it otherwise is a LIE.
That's Lake Wobegon, MN.
We are a federal democratic republic....even if the "federal" part is almost entirely faux
Which is all well and good, but not really relevant to the United States. Which doesn't refer to the States' governments, but to the Federal government.
Note, of course, that referring to the USA as a Democratic Republic would be perfectly reasonable.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'm surprised by the amount of discussion over the nature of the American government (I'm Canadian), and the lack of discussion over who should be setting curricula. Is it the place of the government to set curricula centrally or should teachers and parents have more local control?
In what strange universe is it impossible to be a democracy and a republic?
What feature of the US constitution makes it not a democracy?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Speaking as a longtime resident who has lived long periods in 2 other states and one other country (all of which I liked, by the way), Utah does seem like utopia sometimes. I understand our unemployment to be lower than most (http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/utah/), our state government is very well-managed (recent award: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695258427/Utahs-No-1-for-governing.html), the mountains are *beautiful*, the people are friendly (I think so, Carlos Boozer thinks so: http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700108270/Utah-Jazz-Carlos-Boozer-returns-as-member-of-Bulls.html, people are always thanking the bus drivers, I'm sure you can find someone who doesn't think so), and my personal opinion is that so many things are done ... sensibly. Yes, there is good & bad everywhere, but I for one really like where I live.
A Free, fast personal organizer for touch typists: onemodel
In the purist definition we are now a social democracy. Both republicans and democrats are socialists being that they support and vote to to continue social security and medicare and we have a redistributive tax policy and have had for as long as most people currently alive have been voting. So the hypocrisy of the socialism label is astounding.
I wish both sides would just own up to their socialist tendencies and quit demonizing what most people here actually are in favor of if they rubbed 2 brain cells together now and again.
There is nothing about being a Republic that prevents a country from also being a Democracy. I'm sick of that false distinction. A Republic is a state whose head of state is not a monarch. A Democracy is a state whose government's authority derives from the people. A state can be one, both, or neither.
All's true that is mistrusted
DEMOCRACY - A government of the masses. Authority - derived through mass meeting or any form of 'direct' expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. -1928 United States Army Training Manual
Is the US a republic? Yes.
Does the US use democracy? Yes.
Does the US have a constitution? Yes.
So we're a democratic constitutional republic. Kind of like the thing about passwords, something we are, something we do, and something we have. So of course saying we're a democratic republic or a constitutional republic is also correct, though not as fully informative.
Saying that we're a republic and not a democracy is false, unless by democracy you actually mean "direct democracy," and twisting words like that as part of an argument to use correct terminology as the Utah lawmakers seem to be trying to do is rather asinine.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Come on slashdot editors--
not a democracy, because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it."
does not appear in the linked article.
Save your editorial commentary for, I don't know, the comment section?
I'm seeing implied definitions in the comments for the words "democracy" and "republic" that contradict what I learned in school.
What I learned was that in a democracy the people vote directly on legislation.
In a republic the people elect representatives to legislative bodies, which in turn vote on legislation.
My understanding is that in theory, the U.S., and each of its states, are supposed to be republics, (though the national government under our current constitution was originally intended as a compromise of a federation of the states and a republic).
Yogi Berra said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
In practice, the U.S. is an oligarchy, bordering on fascism, in which power is tightly distributed among the world's wealthiest families and corporate interests.
The appearance of constitutional republicanism is maintained (at least for the naive), because the oligarchs have successfully learned to manipulate public perception through control of the media.
Look i hate to be "That Guy" but if you look up the term "Representative Republic" you'll see a picture of america... we are not and have not been a democracy since we have been electing officials to make laws for us... A Democracy is where We the People Vote on every law... thats not what happen (for the most part) in this country.
==>> "because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it." == The article says no such thing. Note: I consider the whole "its a republic not a democracy" debate to equivalent to "its an automobile, not a car". It's idiotic.
Or maybe it's because I did the 6th grade in a Southern school system. They take a break from the civil war every so often and tell you stuff like that. Or it could have been the couple of Air Force run schools I attended, where they were big on the flag pledge. This was the early 80s mind you, and people still didn't get their vaginas all hurt when you said "God" in school.
I still don't know if the military upbringing was beneficial or detrimental to my education as a whole. I'd have liked to have spent my entire early educational career in the school system in upstate New York where I did my high school years, but on average I wouldn't have been exposed to that system at all.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Non-mormons are also a scary bunch, ask anyone who has had extensive dealings with them.
I've had some real serious run-ins with non-momons and some of them have really strange beliefs and practises.
And no, I don't care if you don't believe me. Experience is the best teacher, and unless you have some actual experience with these people, you have no idea what the real deal is.
Yup -it's even too scary for me to talk about, so that will have to do...
I've met weird mormons too, but I usually figured it was because they were american and so it was the americans that were weird. But then I met some weird english mormons too... so then I realised that it was the weird people that were weird, and that the religious and national factors were not very relevant.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
So many ratings so few points, you sir are:
-1 Troll
-1 Flamebait
+1 Funny
+1 Insightful
+1 Informative
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.
I don't see the "Democrat" in democracy. Both are based on the same Greek word. But I'm sure the folks in Utah will back down once someone points out that there is in fact a "rat" in "Democrat".
Have gnu, will travel.
But that's more a question of how they are organized not how much voting influence each has.
How they are organized, not their voting influence determines the proper term though. To call the United States Government anything other than what it is, a federation, is wrong and a disservice to the people you are trying to educate.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
The fact that this is even being argued shows the level of ignorance many Americans have about their government. Good thing we got rid of Civics class for Social Studies.
There is little doubt the U.S. started as a Republic (See Article 4, Section 4 of the constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble ) to anyone who has read the constitution or studied constitutional history. Wikipedia contains a lot of information on the difference between Democracy and Republic specifically sighting the U.S. as a republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Basically, the Republic has Law as the foundation of decisions whereas Democracy has popular vote (either direct or representative) the basis for decisions. Laws such as the 17 amendment, gun control, patriot act, presidential executive orders, complete abuse of the "promote the general welfare clause" and the like clearly go above any power given by the Law. IMO, this moves us much more toward Democracy with a good measure of oligarchy thrown in (due to the corruption that has resulted from it). I should also point out this is not limited to Republican or Democrat but a result of joint effort.
Plato, in Athens, Greece [Where] in about 340 b.c. was the one who came up with the idea. And had some original thoughts on the issue. One may argue that "Democracy" means something different now [becaue words do change] but you should realize that the distinction is very old.
> Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...
Even better would be if they would actually teach some of the fundamentals of our form of government. Teach what a Republic is and what a Democracy is and the important differences between them. Teach the difference between the Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution entails and what the Rule of Men we now have is and why that is important to them.
Hell, these days if the kids graduate knowing we have three branches of government and can actually name them correctly they are ahead of the average voter.
Democrat delenda est
I have to agree, nowhere in the article did it say, "because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it." I'm actually disappointed that nobody pointed out the bad summary earlier, more-so that CmdrTaco, left it in the summary.
This thread is like the blind men and the elephant, but this line sorta rankles me:
The constitution of the United States does not grant rights, it formally recognizes and protects them. The Bill of Rights takes the Enlightenment Liberal attitude that rights are "endowed by our creator" and are innate to the human condition and are irrepressible in a non-tyrannical system. (I kind of disagree with the Enlightenment Liberal position, but it's where we are.)
The United States is Republic, this is true, but it's very broad. A Republic is any form of state where sovereignty is assigned to the people, and not to a king or dictator. The key factors in the Republic that Plato described was a system wherein the people themselves took on the responsibility for maintaining the state, without necessarily demanding a say in the policies or actions of the state. There is no King to embody the state and hold ultimate responsibility for preserving it, either from outside aggression or internal strife. Saying a state is a Republic is to make no claims about how it operates, how fair or just it is, how liberated its people are, or how equitably it divides its wealth.
A Democracy is a form of government where the actions of the state reflect the will of the people. You can have the direct democracy thing, where everyone votes on every action, or representative systems where people vote for people who take the actions for them. Saying a state is a Democracy makes no claims about how sovereign the organization is -- your book club can be a Democracy. It could never be a Republic.
I think the strongest claim that can be made for the idea that the US is a democracy is based on the direct popular election of all of the national legislators, and (for the most part) the President. All of these people are held to strict account for all of their votes and actions, there is (purportedly) a critical press and political estate that is always examining the actions of the politicians, and people here tend to vote based on what kind of laws they expect their man will pass. On the other hand, in our system, unlike most real democracies on Earth, we vote for the person, not the policy -- in most proportional-representation parliamentary democracies, people vote for a list of candidates under one platform or party, or for individuals that are pledged and bound through party institutions to do what they're told, and the only controlling factor is who holds enough votes in the parliament to elect the Prime Minister. Also in our system, votes are distributed very disproportionately, such that someone in Wyoming has something like 100 times the say in electing a president as a Californian, and his two Senators can effectively hold any action of the federal government, wether that action is a war or cutting grain subsidies. Democracies can hold constitutional safeguards for minorities or not, the protections Americans enjoy aren't really a defining characteristic. And even if countries do have constitutional safeguards, what really counts is the practice -- the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union holds voluminous liberal safeguards, but they were unenforceable given the institutional power of the Communist Party.
Our system was originally formulated as a firm Republic, where only white male landowners could vote for congressmen (a House of Commons), only state congressmen (our Peerage) could vote for Senators (a House of Lords), and only Electors (modeled on the Holy Roman Empire) could vote for our President. Provisions were made to allocate representation in the federal government based on population, not voting population, thus rich landowners (and slaveholders) wielded the voting authority of not just themselves but their entire community. Most Americans in the generations after the f
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
... and to the republic for which it stands ...
Nothing to see here. Move along.
"and to the Republic, for which it stands" and then there's the "under God part" but we can talk about that later.
This says a lot more about 0ryan...
I couldn't agree more. Note that he hasn't commented at all on this thread. Probably because he'd get attacked. Go to his account page to click on the ball next to his name and you can change your "relationship" status to foe.
One more reason to keep an eye on your money.
Important thing to note. Constitutional governments are one where there is a high binding law, above even the governing bodies, that isn't subject to change in the same manner as other laws. The reason to note it with regards to various governments is when you say a government is "Constitutional," it generally means "Has a functioning constitution that actually places some restrictions on the government." Also republics aren't the only kind of governments that can be as such, there are Constitutional Monarchies and so on.
But you are correct, the US is a republic, and always has been. There's a very strong democratic tradition in the US, more than many nations and at the state and lower level you see a lot more of that (like people directly voting on propositions) but it is a republic in structure and function.
One really good example of it that is more concrete to many people is presidential elections. You do NOT elect the president, you elect a person to go vote for the president. When you cast your vote, what you are doing is determining what electors you'd like to go and vote for the president. Who the electors are, the specifics of their choosing and so on varies state to state a bit, but that is how it works and how a president can win the popular vote but lose the election (And Bush v Gore isn't the first time it has happened).
Now I'm not saying that this bill is a useful thing, frankly the legislature shouldn't be concerned on this. However I don't think it is a bad idea to teach kids about different kinds of government and get them a good understanding of clear labeling.
The full article doesn't even have the word "Democrat" in it.
HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday.
This is something that should be a part of every child's education anyway. The submitter has taken a completely non-controversial bill and managed to troll slashdot with it.
Gotta' also work on that "Prime Directive" thing...
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
So many ratings so few points, you sir are:
-1 Troll -1 Flamebait +1 Funny +1 Insightful +1 Informative
Would that come out to +1 Not All Bad?
Actually it's a constitution-based federal republic. The CIA World Factbook says so.
It's perfectly acceptable to use more than one word to describe something.
Josephus and Tacitus. By the way, under your standard the existence of Julius Caesar is not much stronger.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Well, so much for using <em> tags properly.
I thought it was a Democratic Republic. Either way, yes, the government is still a Republic, not a democracy.
Representative Republic seems moderately redundant.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.
No. It's "democratic party" See here
"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2]
And if you look up Federalism, you also see the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
You're completely wrong; a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. The U.S. is both.
Nowhere in the article does it say that they are doing it "because Democracy would have 'Democrat' in it." That was just an editorial comment by the obviously juvenile and biased article-poster. We are a constitutional republic. We are not a pure democracy.
Federation - A collection of semi-independent substates
Republic - A government run by a group constrained by the laws of the government, where the governed have some method within the laws of the government, to affect the ruling group.
Democracy -A government run by the vote of the people.
We are a Federation - each state has a relatively high level of independence.
We are also a Democratic Republic - We have a Republic form of government, enabled by a democratic process (the ruling individuals are selected directly or indirectly by the people, but the majority of decisions are NOT made by the general population).
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> Put it this way: If the USA isn't a democracy, then there is no democracy in the world.
Exactly. Democracies are a stupid form of government that hasn't been tried again since Athens. The US Founders understood that, which is why if you were to have called one of them a Democrat they would have probably called you out to dual over the grave insult. Of course by 1828 we had the Democratic Party so that obviously didn't last long.
Democracy is the idea that if you have 100 people on an island who decide Democracy is the way to go, 51 one can vote to piss in the corn flakes of the remaining 49 and if everyone actually believes in Democracy the losers can challenge the balloting but after the recount they have to chug the piss. If they believe in Democracy they have to accept that as fair and just. We don't have anything like that in the US, we have a Constitution that enshrines inalienable Rights and a Rule of Law that even the majority can't easily infringe. A large enough supermajority can, after the intentional delays and roadblocks built into the system, can of course change the Constitution but the idea is that no momentary madness will last long enough for that to happen.
Democrat delenda est
In a one-man one-vote democracy where people increasingly believe their ignorance matches your knowledge, religion and politics rule our new language masters.
Someone is angry over something, like taxes and how unfair they are. After losing the car house and spouse he finds himself in a shrinking world of local libraries, back issues of Reader's Digest and obscure self published screeds. He is becoming in other words a crackpot.
A concept is born: taxes are illegal! Eureka. Our man spreads the world and watches as it seduces the powerless.
A movement is born....
So it is with this new conservative "Republic" movement. Based on politics and radical Christianity, it has led to redefining not only who we are but most importantly where we're going. But that's not enough. What we're seeing is the indoctrination by fiat of youth, in new laws like this one in Utah.
This is the new political correctness. Ugly, strident and gaining in power. Your children will major in ignorance, get worthless degrees and good luck to them (and you) if they resist.
- js.
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html
Throughout history, no democracy has ever lasted.
Democracy = mob rule.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
I believe the correct term is Freedom Czar.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."
---
Take your arguments to Mr. Franklin.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utahpia!
There, fixed that.
there is no difference in between them. these morons, and i say morons, not to mormons but to the right wing ignorant circles in usa, utter this word as if it is contrary to centralization. "but this country is a republic !!"
iiiis iiit ? so, france is also a republic. and there are no state rights or states there.
switzerland is also a republic, and the decentralization there is MUCH bigger than the one in usa.
these ignorants seem to think that 'republic'/'democracy' etc have anything to do with centralization/federalization/decentralization.
they do not. you can have fascism, yet it can be decentralized (like in feudal times), you can have a democracy/republic, yet it can be more centralized than anything else.
its all about who does the decision making. elected representatives of people, or else.
its appalling that even here there are fools that have the same misconception - hey, doing a google search and reading a wikipedia article with endless references to political science documents is not that hard ? why not take action now, and dont make out yourself come out as an ignorant bimbo.
Read radical news here
Where's the flamebait rating, mods?
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
The question is as insightful as "democracy or republic" — i.e. not at all, because the answer is very obvious: it's both, and there's absolutely no contradiction despite what a poorly educated mind might think.
Luke 4:17-20 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
Of course this is about politics (where, exactly, in the USA are "children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum" ?
State Sen. Mark Madsen is trying to blow the dog whistle that Obama = Socialism, nothing more, nothing less.
Which doesn't refer to the States' governments, but to the Federal government.
Guess why they call it the United "States"? What states do is indeed relevant.
Jesus Christ != Joesph Smith
Jesus was literate, as shown in Luke 4. Joesph was literate and grew up reading the family Bible.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
... a country whose main language is English, or a country where an Indo-European tongue is spoken?
Also, are most people in the U.S. not illiterate, or can most Americans read?
Is roughly 50% of the population female, or has half of it a Y chromosome?
Is there freedom of speech in the U.S., or is Congress prohibited from passing laws restricting the press?
Finally, is it a Republic OR a Democracy?
Remember, in every case, you have to pick ONE case, they're all obviously(*) mutually exclusive!
(*) if you're a Republican
It's all 3, the terms are not mutually exclusive.
It's a democracy because there are elections in which the public votes for their representatives
It's a federation because it's a union of partially self-governing states.
It's a republic because supreme power is in the hands of the people's representatives.
Now I'm not an American, but this whole thing sounds like a politically motivated semantic argument to me. I'd think that'd get into the way of actually teaching.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I don't know if he is literate or not. Wasn't he reading Torah scrolls by age 12 or something? Or was the Torah passed down verbally? Any biblical scholars?
Well trolled sir. I applaud you for your skillful use of the internet to piss people off and and start a long off topic series of threads. I see you even got a +5 insightful for it. You have indeed claimed the crown as their king for the most skillful troll.
Its a CONSTITUTIONAL representative Republic, with a bicameral house, an executive and a judicial branch.
Two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner is democracy.
Sharia is democracy.
Also, the Senate was purposely designed to be obstructionist and to give small states as much power as large states.
Improperly educated people of today, largely devoid of critical thinking skills and the ability to abstract concepts (e.g. banning smoking is a gateway to ALL statutory behavior modification, seems like its serving the greater good but its a gateway to a radical totalitarian authoritarian police state controlled by oligarchical collectivists), gladly subscribed to things that were clearly outlined in book like:
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
We - Yevgeny Zamyatin
Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
Animal Farm - George Orwell
1984 - George Orwell.
Given IPADs and Kindles, its shocking people aren't reading more of this material.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
Whether the term "democrat" would appear or not is just plain stupid. But, it is a fact that the United States is a Federal Republic. Of course, the former Soviet Union was a Unitary Republic, but I doubt they'll want to teach that in Utah.
You have no idea what Christians believe or why, do you?
something that the vast majority of the human race believe
Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. The majority of the human race is not Christian, even if it currently is still the most adhered to faith worldwide.
although the fact that you are reality-impaired enough to say something like
the liberal bastion of slashdot
Is telling in its own right, and may explain why you don't acknowledge that there are (at least) two people in the world who are not Christians for every one person in the world who is.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
A republic is by definition at least partially democratic. You vote for officials who are charismatic and most capable of lying, cheating, and stealing. Then they lie, cheat, and steal for you along with all of the other liars, cheaters, and thieves. And eventually the outcome is the lying, cheating, and stealing that everyone actually wanted to happen, but they just weren't charismatic enough to make it happen. TA DA!
Are you sure?I thought it was the other large church that had the pedophiles. Not the one in Utah.
Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
You know, I usually really like Southpark, but the wookie on Endor joke was some of their poorest work. The joke was supposed to be about making nonsensical statements, and then declaring that if the statement made is nonsenecal, then some other unrealated item must also be nonsensecal, which is in itself nonsesical. Haha, funny. Unfortunatly, there is nothing anymore nonsensical about a wookie visiting Endor than a human visiting Endor.
The flow of Sourthpark as a show, should have Kyle pointing that Chewbacca was on Endor for the same reason that Han Solo, Luke Skywalker and Princess Lea were on the planet. And that claiming it makes no sense for him to be there shows that Johnnie Cochran was a racist. They would have ended the show with the lesson of the day being that racism comes in all colors.
The way it played out though just makes it sound like Trey and Matt slept through most of the Return of the Jedi, so didn't understand the plot.
Actually it's a constitution-based federal republic. The CIA World Factbook says so.
It's perfectly acceptable to use more than one word to describe something.
I thought I said that. Isn't "the United States Government is "Federation". Each State is a constitutional republic." very similar to, if not the same as "constitution-based federal republic"?
In fact, if you to use word order to determine importance and structure, "federal" comes before "republic" ( after "constitution-based" of course ) and reflects the order of Nation then State. So if you had to choose a single word to ( inaccurately ) describe the U.S. Government, "Federation" takes precedence. Just calling the United States Goverment a Republic is still wrong.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
No. It's time for a "Freedom Czar."
Synonyms = Communism!
You obviously don't know dick about the Gospels. They're actually a collection of unrelated works (except inasmuch as they describe the same events) by several people. The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were not the only accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and several other works of the era corroborate a great deal of the narrative.
In other words, if a bunch of guys all independently said the guy could read, the guy could probably read.
Oh, and in closing, save your venomous atheist bullshit for somebody else. I'm not a Christian, just someone who's not a fucking idiot and knows how to read. Like Jesus, probably.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Indeed. I'm not sure what the hell any of this is supposed to mean. A republic isn't defined by how the executive and/or legislative branches are chosen, and you can have dictatorial, autocratic and democratic republics, or some combination thereof.
The United States is a representative democracy, with a bicameral legislature elected by popular vote and a presidency chosen by an electoral college, so is somewhat indirectly democratically elected. The United States is a democracy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
1783 to 1791 is 8 1794 to 1798 is 4 more, then 1805 to 1812 is 7 years, then 1815 to 1836 is 21
So thats 40 years without war pretty easy and pretty contiguously.
No, that's a direct democracy. You're using an extremely antiquated definition of democracy, and one that only applied to some of the Greek City States. Since the modern usage of the word is more expansive, what you're doing is simply committing the etymological fallacy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
*Proceeds to stack more mud*
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
No, at the state level isn't still a representative republic. I voted for House and Senate members to represent my district in the Alaska State House, I vote for city council members to represent my district in the Municipality of Anchorage government.
I get a direct say on changes to the state Constitution.
UK and Sweden are democracies but not republics.
Syria and Belarus are republics and not democracies.
I had to take a stab at this, I'm from the UK and know most of my information on your government structure etc from the insightful/informative posts on here and the news/personal research, and my guesses are (without google I promise!) Senate, House of Reps, and Courts
The morphing occurred in the exact opposite direction. See wikipedia or (highly recommended if you have the time) these free lectures by Yale's prof. Donald Kagan.
Some aspects are representative, some voting. People who say it is either of them are incorrect.
Unfortunately, Utah politicians have spent way too much time on low-priority bills like this. There are so many more important things than designating an official state gun or how a bicyclist should legally stop at a stop sign. A utopia Utah is not. Two things that come to mind we need help with are education spending (in the bottom 5 states of dollars spent per child) and bankruptcy (in the top 10 states).
Well damn close, you got two. The Senate and House of Representatives form the Legislative branch, tasked with making policy and laws. The courts form the Judicial branch. You missed one: The Executive branch.
But props, that's more than my average countryman would know. Oh, and the grandparent didn't RTFA: They ARE going to be teaching the difference, just as I was back in the 90's in PA!
Using the same "logic" they can't use Republic either, because it has republican in it.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
It's not the Senate, House, and Courts.
It's the Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, or more precisely the Judiciary.
Congress is split between the House and the Senate.
For Civics Teachers, Slashdot's posters make very good perl hackers.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
"Republic" and "democracy" are not alternatives to one another. A country can be both or neither or either one but not the other.
The USA has a presidency rather than a monarchy, that makes it a republic, the government is elected by the people that makes it a democracy (a representative democracy to be more precise).
Iraq, pre-war, was a non-democratic republic.
The UK is a democratic monarchy.
Saudi Arabia is a non-democratic monarchy.
The USA is a democratic republic.
Of course who needs education when you are WINNING!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The issue with high-speed cargo rail transport is that it's more expensive than low-speed cargo rail transport, and the few pennies I can save per ton-mile really add up when I'm moving a hundred tons two thousand miles.
There's also the issue of rail density: tracks just don't go as many interesting places in the US as they do elsewhere. In Germany, there are 115 meters of rail route for every square kilometer of land area. In the US there are 14. If I wanted to come up with, say, a FedEx High-Speed Rail in the US to fit in between FedEx Ground and FedEx Express, I'd end up having to use trucks a bunch anyway to get from rail stations to unconnected cities, whereas in a more densely-populated and densely-railed country, chances are I'd only need to worry about delivery in a radius where delivery drivers could actually operate.
3-5% in rural areas and 10-12% in urban areas are the going estimates for 1st century BCE literacy rates last time I looked.
If everyone was illiterate why are there discussions in the New Testament implying literacy being the norm? By 60 CE the establishment of organized schools had been decreed and started in Palestine.
Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:6-7) implied literacy in the normal course of business in 1st century CE Jewish society.
http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Luke+16
> Oh, and the grandparent didn't RTFA:
What does that matter? They can write whatever they want and the schools will merrily continue doing the same incompetent job they are doing now. And until we end tenure in the K12 system nothing is going to change.
Seriously, since this article has already devolved into 90% offtopic religion and mormon bashing anyway...... Define the word Tenture and then can somebody (anybody?) explain what the hell it has to do with a K-12 teacher? How did the practice ever get established? But with teachers pretty much given lifetime employment there is zero chance of improving the government schools. And with guys like Bill Ayers running the education departments at the influential institutions designing the curriculum tachers are taught the notion of socialism in the schools isn't a worry about the future, it is now. And the all have tenure.
Democrat delenda est
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary ... Merriam-Webster dictionary ... dictionary.reference.com ...
You should have looked up both "democracy" and "republic". You would have found that they both share the characteristics you emphasize:
- Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
- Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
However the definitions for republic also includes:
- A head of state that is not a monarch. In contrast your sources specifically permit a monarchy in a democracy.
So "republic" is a better fit for the Unites States.
Furthermore your Merriam-Webster source includes:
Examples of REPUBLIC
when asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”
and your dictionary.com source includes:
Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Which is why founding fathers described their creation as a republic back in the day. For a more modern perspective lets see how the US government describes itself today:
Country name:
conventional long form: United States of America
conventional short form: United States
abbreviation: US or USA
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
I do know what Kelber's schtick is, thank you very much. However, the oral historians have a particular axe to grind. I think you've read a bit to confirm your prejudices, and your knowledge of the NT era is derived from a bit of reading, but you don't understand the background in any depth. (Apart from anything else, even 1.5% literacy is easily enough for a bright kid from an artisanal background to become literate. There was social mobility then - or how did Jews become Roman citizens?) I'm not wasting any more time on you, because you have very fixed ideas and an abusive turn of phrase. I just wanted to let you know your assumptions are incorrect.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Of course Jesus was a Rabbi, perhaps he went to yeshiva, perhaps it was some sort of lay ministry deal like his cousin John was doing, and of course he was married.
When the Biblical Canon had been decided by about 150-175 CE it was already self-censored to what the proto-Christans wanted it to say and to separate from the Jews. Proto-Christians were getting enough trouble without tying themselves to the rebellious Jews.
If America isn't a democracy, then why do you get to vote? Answer that, smart guy.
Accuracy? The United States is neither. It's a Federation. Why the hell do you think it's called "The Federal Government"?
Merely to distinguish it from state and local government.
According to the federal government itself, the proper description is:
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
Jews have always had a pretty large emphasis on being able to read.
No, they haven't. That's a relatively modern thing, which evolved long after AD 70 (when modern Talmudic Judiasim was effectively born). Country Jews in Jesus's time were nothing like modern Jews.
Ah, but they had some sweet music!
[UID-HeinzIntel]
Since this came up in a thread about Mormons, I thought I should mention that Mormons are the exception to this rule.
If you think the LDS is just a kind, charitable organization, you've never been around a large number of them for long. Move to Utah sometime and try to run for office without the right LDS credentials and you'll find out about their charity and kindness, alright.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Can you read? The question was whether the US is a republic or a monarchy, not whether the US is a republic or a democracy. If you'd crack open any dictionary, you'd know that a) Franklin is correct, b) a democracy has little to do with a republic, and a state can be both, neither or just one of them.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
that democracy is a dirty word. I am stunned.
I think the real irony here is that these legislators have resorted to indoctrinating children with political propaganda, for all that it is rather inane. Oh that's right. Propaganda is all right as long as it's our propaganda.
What exactly is "Democratic Republic of the Congo"? (The first thing that comes to my mind is: "An irony")
Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
This is not news for nerds, or stuff that matters, but since we have thrown up the flame bait:
The USA IS a Republic and not a democracy, although it is never taught that way in schools. I think Utah is taking a step in the right direction.
Shouldn't we learn that we have a similar system to what Rome had and then also what happened in Rome once they lost their Republic...It seems that there used to be an old adage about not knowing history and being doomed to repeat it.
The submitter, 0ryan0, states that the change was made because "Democracy" contains the word "Democrat". This reason is not mentioned at all in the article.
Our government IS a republic. If anything this is an example of Utah choosing fact over tradition.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Unfortunatly, there is nothing anymore nonsensical about a wookie visiting Endor than a human visiting Endor.
Ha! Nice rant, but it completely falls apart because you didn't pay enough attention to the Chewbacca Defense.
Cochran didn't say it made no sense for Chewbacca to be on Endor, visiting. He said it didn't make sense that Chewbacca lived on Endor.
Which, of course, he doesn't. Which just adds another layer of nonsense to the whole thing.
I would have thought that for someone chastising Trey and Matt for sleeping through Jedi, this would have leaped right out at them.
The enemies of Democracy are
Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell
1984 - George Orwell.
I only read the later book, but now I'm going to read the former one.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Yeah, it means job security in the face of shitty pay and very uneven budget situations. Due to changes in insurance, teachers make less today than they have in at least 30 years. It's a small portion of the GDP, and if you think gutting the educational system is going to do anything but destroy America's future, you're either delusional or a traitor, or possibly a delusional traitor, who has no understanding whatsoever of Keynesian economics. Your fellow teabaggers are mostly a collection of old white people who want to continue to get their socialist bennies that form the bulk of our government's expense, while contributing nothing to America's future. It is ironic they espouse Ayn Rand so heavily, when they themselves are the parasites. Well, them and the NO BLOOD FOR OIL GEORGE BUSH WAR CRIMES retards on the left. Frankly, I think the best way to improve America's test scores is to take both groups and dump them at the nearest lighthouse in the North Atlantic. You'd be free of those socialist taxes, wouldn't it be great?
...stipulate they tip animals, not cows....
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
Stop shilling for BO and the Dems. They are teaching the truth!
Instead of protecting academic freedom, tenure more often than not stifles it (for college professors, since only those who toe the line get tenure) or is completely irrelevant in a system where academic freedom does not exist (pre-college schools) in the modern age.
That said, politically-motivated firings should be dealt with harshly, regardless of the political affiliations targeted. I'd be satisfied with complete loss of pension, benefits, and privilege of public employment for provable cases, myself. If it's not directly related to teaching performance, it's likely not a fire-able offense, no matter how much you dislike their politics or views. Have a problem with that? Go pay to put your kid through private school.
Um, do you know how absolutely little money goes to the NEA? We could shave off one day of our occupations of Iraq or Afghanistan, and cover the "expense" of the NEA for years. And the money for the NEA goes into local US economies (giving money to artists who then buy materials in their neighborhoods, producing shows for people in US cities, etc.)
That you would single out the NEA of all things as an example of "waste" indicates you have a huge and irrational axe to grind.
"And to the republic, for which it stands."
I'll just leave this here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
That is actually not true. The UK, Sweden and the Netherlands are all democracies, but are not republics (they're monarchies.) North Korea is a republic, but not a democracy.
Utah is claiming that we're more like North Korea than like Sweden.
It's not my responsibility to do your research for you.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
It's like "assault weapons," or "narcotics." It's a political hobby-horse that politicians trot out to sway people to vote for their particular brand of theft and coercion.
The US is both. To call it simply "a democracy" or "a republic" completely misses the point that those are general categories which are sometimes almost entirely exclusive of what the US actually is in form and function.
Didn't anyone point out to Senator Madsen that socialism IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
Everyday I become more convinced this country is sliding down the slope of failure.
~X~
I don't think they realized that he didn't live there. The rant implies that they thought he did live there, and it makes the joke fall apart. It just isn't there best work.
And according to the pledge of allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
We have people the represent us in out government. We elect them democratically, but we have a republic. Unless it is called a democratic republic?
http://wimp.com/thegovernment
Watch it 10 times if that's what it takes.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I'm pretty sure they knew, since they are giant Star Wars nerds and did not sleep through Jedi. I don't think anyone actually believes Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor. It was a deliberate error.
On the other hand, you definitely didn't realize they were claiming he lived there, so your claim falls flat.
The enemies of Democracy are
So, your saying that you would be fine with a dictatorship, as long as the dictator was making moral and ethically sound decisions? While a benevolent dictatorship might work for Linux, I don't think it would work well for a full government.
Even during a crisis where survival is at stake?
Dictatorship is a historic response to crisis where survival is in question. It uses the battlefield proven concept that sometimes there is no time to debate, no time to search for the best solution, that a good-enough solution from an expert is needed at this precise moment. The concept is not theoretically totally without merit, the problem is that in practice dictators tend to lack the morals to give up power once the crisis is over and such rapid decision making is no longer necessary. One of the rare exceptions:
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519 BC – 438 BC) was an aristocrat and political figure of the Roman Republic, serving as consul in 460 BC and Roman dictator in 458 BC and 439 BC.[1]
Cincinnatus was regarded by the Romans, especially the aristocratic patrician class, as one of the heroes of early Rome and as a model of Roman virtue and simplicity. A persistent opponent of the plebeians, when his son was convicted in absentia and condemned to death, Cincinnatus was forced to live in humble circumstances, working on his own small farm, until an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he immediately resigned after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines and Volscians.
His abandoning of his work to serve Rome, and especially his immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis, has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, and modesty. As a result, he has inspired a number of organizations and other entities, a number of which are named for him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus
Thundercougarfalconbird!
So they've been to Utah!
If you think the LDS is just a kind, charitable organization, you've never been around a large number of them for long. Move to Utah sometime and try to run for office without the right LDS credentials and you'll find out about their charity and kindness, alright.
If you go on record in Utah saying most of the stuff you've been saying here then I'd say your problem (or whoever is running for office in Utah) is that you are offending the people who you need to vote for you. Offending the voters has never been a great tactic to win elections.
Having met many of these legislators (indeed, having previously been in a position where I would headdesk regularly at their antics), even if the article doesn't say it, I can vouch for the fact that those pushing the bill are in the ultra-conservative wing of Utah's already conservative (and controlling) Republican party.
Pretty much anyone from Utah County, including Sen Madsen (R-Eagle Mountain), Sen Dayton (R-Orem) and Sen Stephensen (sp?; who sits just across the north border of the county) are at the extreme conservative end of the political spectrum, and regularly introduce legislation designed to disrupt public education. For example, a couple of years ago, Sen Dayton (on the word of a single constituent who thought alike, and despite resistance from every education-saavy person I know) went on a crusade against the International Baccalaureate program, decrying it as a socialist takeover of state's rights (never mind that each school, and thus each locally elected school board, must choose to opt in).
The representatives from the same area (unsurprisingly) act similarly, and most of them would like to see a complete dismantling of public education in favor of a completely market-based approach. Now that's a whole different kettle of fish, but it provides some insight into why they are so consistently disruptive--and I don't mean in the positive innovation-friendly sort of way, but rather the time-consuming, prevent-actual-innovation-because-of-extra-work sort of way.
Spoken like a true post-modern mush head. Most Congress Critters are fine upstanding citizens. The problem isn't so much them, the problem is us. The first candidate that comes along and says he/she will raise taxes and cut benefits to fix the deficits will get voted down because Americans still think they can get something for nothing.
I think they're pretty close to being right, even if their motives might be somewhat suspect. Personally, I've recently been under the impression that we're an Oligarchistic Republic, or whatever governmental entity that requires bad spelling like I just used..
Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
Social democracy is not mumbo jumbo. It is merely more terminology which accurately reflects where we are in our evolution now.
As to all governments being social, that has little to do with the descriptor of a social democracy. You could say a totalitarian regime is social or a collective is social. The way you phrase it has little actual meaning.
Your assertion that there is plenty of effort to stop giving social security is unfounded.
Nobody has paid more than they are getting except the wealthy. Most people have paid less at this point than what they will receive. This has only been amplified over time.
Politicians will never abolish either program since they are popular. Both democrats and republicans are socialists. The only non-socialists I see are the libertarians whom I largely agree with, but they are a fraction of a fraction. Their ideas have more pull sometimes, but they have next to zero political power.
"Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it."
Doesn't say that. Commentary fail.
What the article actually says:
"HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday."
Sounds like a well-rounded course. So unless you're only wanting to teach from one side, I don't see a problem with this.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
(I presume that you you meant that you don't think anyone actually believes Chewbacca DOES live on Endor.)
I just went back and watched it again to make sure that I wasn't confused. You should do the same. The point of the Chewbacca defense was to say things that are true, but don't make sense, and then associate the trial with the absurd statement.
The whole point of the Chewbacca Defense was to make fun of Strawman Arguments. The idea of making fun of Strawman Arguments is the kind of thing I would expect from Trey and Matt. The fact that they didn't prove their Strawman breaks the joke. Everything in the joke is to come to the final strawman statement of "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit". There is nothing in there that indicates that "Chewbacca lives on Endor" is an intentional error, but the entire structure of the joke indicates that it was an unintentional error.
Yes, "lives" is more specific than "is on". That doesn't change the fact that the crux of the joke is wrong.
Been there. Done that. It's more (IMNSHO) about whether you subscribe to ultra-right-wing ideology (outside of Salt Lake Valley, that is, although it helps there too). Heck, there is an openly gay member of the state legislature (from Salt Lake)--he's clearly not a member of "the dominant religion," so your generalization is inaccurate and unhelpful.
I agree and to reduce it to a single term is a disservice to the ones to be educated.
But... If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, would you describe the United States government to be a federation or a republic? The States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
I agree it's a semantic argument. To reduce it to a single term is a disservice to the ones to be educated.
If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, the States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence and the label "federation" should apply.
However, if you wanted to focus on state rights and distance yourself from the Federal Government, you may want to apply the label "republic".
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
Having some aspects of a Democracy does not make you one. I stated this above, but it's equivalent to "Having some aspects of a male does not make you male."
The problem I have is that some people outright call the US a democracy because we have certain aspects of Democracy in our Republic.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands
Jewish males of the times were generally expected to be able to read, at least small extracts of, the Torah. And given that the Jesus quoted in the Bible is seen to quote the Torah and use rather sophisticated rhetorical methods it is more likely he was fairly educated.
A craftsman like a carpenter had a far higher socio-economic status in that period than your are implying.
Modern people have a fascinating need to denigrate the abilities and accomplishments of those that preceded them.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
Good point, i misread lawmakers for lawyers, sorry :)
A dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed. This is inherently bad.
Not really. When we hear the word dictator we think of absolute rulers who claim divine authority, the president for life, etc. However there is another type of dictator. One that was chosen by the people to temporarily lead during a crisis that threatens survival. If that dictator is a Cincinatus rather than a Caesar things may not be bad.
... Cincinnatus led the infantry in person ... the war ended and Cincinnatus disbanded his army. He then resigned his dictatorship and returned to his farm, a mere sixteen days after he had been nominated dictator ..."
"... an invasion caused him [Cincinatus] to be called to serve Rome as dictator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus.
All of those countries have/had elections. The problem is that only one party is/was allowed to run in the elections.
Yes, the United States is not a pure democracy. Most of the posters have that correct. What is NOT true is where the original poster said Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, "BECAUSE A DEMOCRACY WOULD HAVE DEMOCRAT IN IT. I can find that language nowhere in TFA or any associated news stories.
When the body of the people in a republic are possessed of the supreme power, this is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy.
The Spirit of Laws
One of my kids came home with a poll which the clever school teacher probably thought would expose the general ignorance of the American public. The question was "Which one describes the American system of government?" and the two possible answers were Democracy and Republic. Before hearing the two possible answers, I replied "Democratic Republic". Unfortunately, my child was not able to bring back a suitable answer to the teacher because the right answer was not one of the possibilities.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic.
Correct.
Their reasons for doing this may be wrong...
What? I RTA and they don't say anything about democracy having the word democrat in it. It is a valid concern that students in public school systems should be correctly taught what type of government we are (meant to) have. Especially these days when so many are being taught that the government takes care of everything and is the ultimate authority in everyone's lives.
There is no country in the world today which is a "full democracy". Even Switzerland is still a representative democracy. But we still call them "democratic countries", or simply "democracies", colloquially.
Most teachers get pensions. That often means half pay for the rest of your life after working 20 years. That is a huge savings.
Play with this spreadsheet. Assume a teacher earns $40k/year from age 25 to 45 and pulls $20k/year in pension from age 45 to 80. What salary and savings rate would be required for someone to have the same standard of living in the private sector without a pension?
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ag9h4XC7DlGWdGoxZlZoeFcwbGVLMURPdW02YTRVSHc&hl=en#gid=0
The point of tenure is to prevent those who control the purse strings from having control over what the schools teach. It is supposed to prevent corruption by prevent threats behind closed doors. Mandates like this have to go through legislation and fall under public scrutiny.
huh, I stand corrected.
Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.
> The point of tenure is to prevent those who control the purse strings from having control over what the schools teach.
All government employees employment conditions are controlled by the various Civil Service laws which prevent politically motivated hiring and firing. Justify the case where K-12 teachers require additional protection over and beyond those existing protections.
The current reality is that between Civil Service, Tenture and Unions teachers have become a protected class that can't be fired unless convicted of a major felony that imposes jail time such that that simply can't show up for work any more.
Democrat delenda est
Most teachers get pensions. That often means half pay for the rest of your life after working 20 years. That is a huge savings.
Play with this spreadsheet. Assume a teacher earns $40k/year from age 25 to 45 and pulls $20k/year in pension from age 45 to 80. What salary and savings rate would be required for someone to have the same standard of living in the private sector without a pension?
First of all, starting teacher salaries are nowhere near $40K.
Second, where do you get this idea that teachers are retiring at 45 and living the high life?
Most important, you have to realize that contributions to the pension plans are deferred benefits paid in lieu of immediate salary. In other words, when the retiree collects a pension, he is collecting from the money that was put aside for him. The total compensation package is cash salary plus pension contribution.
The other option, of course, is for the employee to be given the pension money in cash up front and then he can invest it how he wants (or spend it, or whatever). Or, more likely, the employee will be told, "We are no longer contributing to your pension, and we are not giving you the pension contribution to you in cash," which is, no matter how you slice it, a significant reduction in compensation.
"Social democracy" is not the same as "socialism", however.
"Never mind the actual fact that the form of Government here in the United States is a Representative Republic. Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct..."
Yeah, start tossing around terms like Democracy and Democratic Process, and people might actually start to think that their votes matter...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
You were obviously confused since your whole original rant was based on misquoting the joke, so your reading is a mis-reading. The point was not to say things that are true but don't make sense. It was nonsense from start to finish.
And there is a very good reason to believe it was an intentional error, other than the simple fact that any Star Wars fan knows Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor, and Trey and Matt are fans. In the actual quote by Cochrane that they were parodying -- "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" -- it is widely believed by those who are critical of the OJ Trial that OJ's demonstration that "the glove doesn't fit" was a farce. As in, it was not true.
So it was both a non sequitor*, a conclusion that does not follow from its premise, and a false premise. Just like in the Chewbacca Defense. To even get to the part that the logic didn't make sense, you had to accept the premise, which was false. They weren't just making fun of illogical statements in general, but also the shear magnitude of nonsense that Cochrane was able to get away with.
Sorry, but you're just way off on your reading, both in the specifics and in the context. I'm not even much of a SP fan, but they were spot-on in their parody of Cochrane with the Chewbacca Defense and it is some of their finest work.
* Not a Strawman Argument, since neither real nor SP Cochrane was misrepresenting their opponent's argument
The enemies of Democracy are
I would never expect to see such hateful and bigoted comments from anyone who claims to have the intelligence to understand the technical issues of today. The last time I checked Utah State history it was added to the United States of America the same way all other US states were. It's name doesn't even have anything to do with Mormonism but the Ute Indians of the area. Yes, the center of the L.D.S. Church is in Utah, but there are many religions existing there. In fact, Salt Lake City has less than 50% Mormon population. Your brash and angry use of the English language is proof of the weakness and out of control, vacillating, uneducated position of your opinion.
Somehow people also have some sort of assumption of capitalism as part of the Constitution. In fact there is nothing at all to even imply that capitalism be permitted within our system of government. The ability to tax for the general good and maintenance of the nation and its people is a bold faced declaration of socialism.
Only in the contemporary. Classical understanding of the terms has a Democracy almost exclusively referring to direct democracy. This is a question of scholarly understanding. Utah should consult the philosophy professors at U of U to decide how the terms should be taught in schools today. I myself no longer know if referring to a democratic republic as a democracy is correct usage of the term today. Any philosophy professors on here want to chime in?
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.
Actually the post that I responded to was asserting that the US gov't was not a republic, claiming that those who thought it a republic were brainwashed. So there was a contradiction and various other shortcomings.
Everything in the article summary is wrong EXCEPT the link!
0ryan0 opined:
No, that statement isn't supported by the article you linked to...
And CmdrTaco threw in with
Which really added nothing to the point, but then again, that is his right ;^)
What I find fascinating is the number of posts that slam the legislature for bothering with this, and then they'll add hundreds of words defining precisely what form of Gov't they believe we have in the US of A...
Any chance folks would want to slough-off the topic if the legislature wanted to emphasise the word "theory" when describing evolution?
The goal of the legislature is that students be taught what the form of government we have here in US of A is, and based on the nearly 1,000 posts on this topic, to consider this "settled science" is a bit premature. If the debate here is any indication, clarity on this topic has not been in our education system for a number of years.
Ken
I am well aware of Cincinnatus's dictatorship, as well as several others - Calatinus, Fabius Maximus, Sulla, and Camillus, to name a few.
However, let us not forget the last dictator, a certain Gaius Iulius Caesar, who used that power to make himself dictator for life. A rather short life, to be sure, but his successors found ways to secure the power of the dictatorship without the title itself.
I don't know why i'm responding, because obviously you've been indoctrinated by somebody who has never read the bible and neither have you. The trinity is an invention by the Catholic church which not all churchs agree with.
Having fixed all other problems with the state public education, Utah senate fixes common misconception of students reading chapter 3 of their Civics book.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
This should be a "well, duh". The fact that a state legislature finds it necessary to micromanage the public education establishment on something so obvious should speak volumes about the rampant incompetence of the latter. Sad that our Republic has come to this.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
I'd respectfully disagree about "constitutional", notwithstanding that yes, we do have a constitution. But considering that we are, as you say, a Socialist Federal Republic Democratic, then members of the national party (the Socialist-Fed Dem Publicans) should have no problem if we taught that in the schools. There. Got that out.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Actually, it IS the Democratic Party
Democrat is just a shortened form.
You clearly don't know what a strawman argument is.
Man you are ignorant. Do you know the Pledge of Allegiance? Let me refresh your memory.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the [B]republic for which it stands[/B], one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
One of the reasons that this country is so messed up is because the socialists is this country have led many people to believe that they're supposed to be able to vote for things that they want, such as handouts. However this is not what our founding fathers wants, they knew that a pure democracy is a dangerous thing since it allows the majority to trample the rights of the minority. This is why the US was formed as a republic, republics are ruled by law and not by the wants of any group of individuals. Pure democracies only work until the people discover that they can vote themselves free stuff, which in turn bankrupts their government. Does this sound familiar?
Why so much vehemence in your arguments?
You know what other countries are also a republic? People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Islamic Republic of Iran, etc.
Their government are really form by representatives of the people, just not elected representative (well, not universal and fair election anyway...) What sets us apart IS the strong democratic tradition.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
You're confusing Socialism with political repression. Socialism doesn't need to be single party governance. Just because it happens to be that way most of the time doesn't mean it has to be that way all the time.
"Time to spend my browsing time elsewhere,"
Close the door on your way out thanks.
You would be a classic case. I live in Australia we have a representative democracy. We do not vote on everything as you claim.
Look it up in a dictionary for goodness sake.
That's more of a propaganda line than an actual political definition. Do you think the Roman Republic ceased to be a republic because of the Triumvirates?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
old SNL rules.
bah.
"Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a 'Democracy' would have 'Democrat' in it."
was not found anywhere in the linked article, and the utopia comment was uncalled for. Especially since, as many others have pointed out, the US *is* a Representative Republic. I was not aware that the submission form was a place to blog our feelings about the political atmospheres of various states.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Second, where do you get this idea that teachers are retiring at 45 and living the high life?
This. Why don't we take this anti-teacher Tea Party animosity and point it at bankers, pharmaceutical companies, and the military-industrial complex, where it belongs? It cannot possibly be so hard to see that the labor argument has been very recently recast, so that the average Joe perceives other average Joes as much better off. Your desire for socioeconomic equity is being leveraged so that you can be deployed as a weapon to seal your own fate with lack of economic mobility.
Stop picking on the teachers. They're doing a job you don't have the balls to do. If you want change, go where the money is.
Every morning. 180 mornings a year. For 13 years. (Year 1 = Kindergarten).
My teacher had us stand at attention, face the flag, a recite the pledge of allegiance as approved as law by the US congress.
That is 2,340 recitations where I swore "I pledge my allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Note that the congress did not ask me to pledge my allegiance to a democracy. In a democracy, each citizen gets an equal vote. Had we been a democracy, Al Gore, not George Bush would have been elected in the year 2000. In a republic, our state "electors" get to override the popular vote if they so choose. (And in 2000, for the 4th time in US history, that is just what happened.)
No matter what the conspiracy theorists say, GW did not "steal" the election. He played by the rules. The rules of our REPUBLIC.
That is the way things are and I don't expect either party to amend the constitution to make us a democracy in my lifetime.
The upper chamber of congress is little better with voters in small states having up to 17 times the power of voters in big states. (I.e. little Utah and big California each get 2 and only two votes.)
However, as I love my country, this is where I'll stay and exercise my right to be a curmudgeon.
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
Now you're just trolling, or just being an idiot, not that there's a difference.
The enemies of Democracy are
you would want to do to disempower the people is to start teaching them that we don't have any semblance of a democratic system. Don't want to give them ideas that they can change things.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Of course, since you didn't bother reading the message before replying to to, I don't expect that you'll read it this time, either - even though I just gave you a link to it. However since it was a very short message that you replied to without reading, I don't mind quoting it here for you.
It started:
Do you expect a real education in a state where almost everyone believes the state was founded by fucking angels visiting con men pedophiles in caves?
Which as the topic of discussion is Utah, clearly the state in question is also Utah. Whether he is talking specifically about Mormonism, or more generally about Christianity, the point remains the same and you are not even close to the
vast majority of the human race
as you plainly stated in your reply.
The original message then went on to say:
And before all you Christians have a good laugh at these backwards Mormons, keep in mind that *you* dipshits believe that a first-century illiterate peasant was the "Son of God" (as evidenced somehow by the fact that a backwoods Roman prefect was able to crucify this "god"). So don't laugh too hard.
Which very specifically mentions Christians - which again are not a "vast majority of the human race" - not
ALL religion
As you just errantly claimed.
So perhaps you are angry because you couldn't bother to read the original message you were replying to, and hence you were down-moderated because your reply was irrelevant fact-free garbage. Or perhaps you are angry because your close-minded assumptions on the world are also fact-free garbage. One way or the other, you are simply wrong. And throwing out insults like
someone of you limited capabilities to be able to grasp the difference.
Doesn't help your position; nor does your grammatical error within the same statement. Of course, when you can't even write your first sentence without resorting to a petty insult, you've already lost any high ground you may have been hoping for.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Can't let that one slide. Without even looking it up or verifying it in any way, I can tell you with 100% certainty that teachers in Madison make nothing in the ballpark of $100K a year. That would be absurd. Even $50K takes a decade or more to work up to. I do earn money in that ballpark and I'm not even 40 yet, and do I deserve to make more than a school teacher, with the responsibility they're given? heck no. If you paid them better, we'd get better teachers, that's economics 101. Also, the system is broken because it IS gutted.
Ah, an ideologue. Put your books down and look at the real world. Total privatization of the U.S. in the vein of your heroes von mises, hayek, et al, would lead to a banana republic and mass poverty on the scale of which the world has never seen. Mountains of evidence suggest so. A cursory glance at world history suggests so (and a deep look proves it). So unless a truly stratified class society is your 'ideal', then you're just plain wrong. If it IS your ideal, which is, I suspect, deep down for you so-called libertarians, to be the case, then you are literally wicked at worst.
i can ensure you that where i live Tenure is the least of the issues.. even with it you can still be "fired" but right now everything is the lowest common denominator.. and that is the parents.. right now the teachers hands are so tied that they can't do anything - they are forced to use a different programs each year some that have zero measurable out come - the schools are full of wasteful spending and wasteful use of resources.
They can't discipline a child at all - my wife is a teacher - she isn't allowed to take recess away because the school board decided that it might make the kids view exercise and physical activity in a negative way and we need to ensure that all the children have a good view of physical exercise to fight the obesity epidemic. these are the same people that agreed to put vending machines for candy bars and soda in elementary school cafeteria because they get a cut of the revenue from them.
when i do the math and realize how much we are spending per child in our county.. vs what we are getting. it really makes me want to ***************
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
In the state of Reality, Utah is a concept
Good thing for you that perl is a write-only language then[0], or did you miss the part where he said he was "from the UK" and "taking a stab" (that is, a guess) at it?
Like an uncle-post said, he still did better than most of the voting public would have.
[0] If you're going to flame me, flame me for something I deserve. I love perl the best.
Were you not responding to this post? That's the parent I see.
Um, actually, it doesn't assert that. With all due respect, I suggest you reread it, as well as its parent. That post does not assert that the US is not a republic, it doesn't even mention the word. It asserts that a republic is a kind of democracy, and that those who think that the US is not a democracy (as if republic and democracy were mutually exclusive) were brainwashed. You're both making the same point, that the US is a democracy and a republic.
All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.
Nope, and you can go to their web site and see for yourself.
Here is a wikipedia article on the subject.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
You cite what to amounts to little more than a free-verse poem to support your position on the reality of a political question, and you've got the cogliones to come out calling OTHER people ignorant?
Thanks for the wonderful demonstration how you can be right (or half-right, at least. The USA isn't a pure republic either) and yet STILL come off as a douche.
"contributions to the pension plans are deferred benefits paid in lieu of immediate salary"
Exactly. My argument is that teacher's salaries are much higher than they appear because of the deferred payment in the form of pensions. I don't think teachers are living the high life, but they are make quite a decent living.
A teacher who works for 20 years and retires for 40 years with half pay will have the same standard of living as a person who earns twice the teacher's salary but earn but saves enough to pay themselves the same pension. The only difference is that the teacher will keep getting the pension after 40 years if they keep living, while the independent saver will run out of money.
Hitler was elected, but Lenin? Mao? Kim Il-Sung? Really?
It is a form of socialist government. The other 2 being democratic socialism where there is a democracy with the government owning the means of production and private property or marxism. There are some who will debate whether fascism is actually falls under the umbrella of socialism as well.
"Blackwell gives some clarity, describing three branches of socialism:
To characterize the socialist left, we perhaps need a threefold distinction, between Marxism, democratic socialism, and social democracy. . . . Democratic socialism shares the Marxist belief in the prime importance of bringing the means of production into social ownership but adds the view that this change can be secured by democratic means [instead of Marx's revolution]; social democracy shares the democratic socialist's commitment to democracy, but rejects the primacy of ownershp which both the Marxist and the democratic socialist hold as central, and defines socialism largely in terms of redistribution and greater equality within the context of the mixed economy. ("Social Democracy," pp. 484-85, italics and bold added)"
Were you not responding to this post? That's the parent I see. Um, actually, it doesn't assert that. With all due respect, I suggest you reread it, as well as its parent. That post does not assert that the US is not a republic, it doesn't even mention the word. It asserts that a republic is a kind of democracy, and that those who think that the US is not a democracy (as if republic and democracy were mutually exclusive) were brainwashed. You're both making the same point, that the US is a democracy and a republic.
The post I responded to merely quotes three dictionary definitions of democracy. I see no assertion that a republic is a kind of democracy, just an attack on someone who rejects the vague label of democracy and accepts the more specific label of republic. You are being extraordinarily generous in your interpretation of this post. :-)
Thats ok, the second book is more equal than the first one :)
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
WTF does everybody think the pledge of allegiance means when it says
".. and to the republic for which it stands..."
USA is BOTH a Democracy AND a Republic.
Or at least it was. It's now a Plutocracy and Corporatocracy.
:T:R:A:N:S:
I always thought that:
- the word "republic" was an abbreviation of "represents the public". (ie. a group of decision makers who are meant to represent public opinion)
- the ideal of "democracy" was that the "the people rule the people for the good of the people".
So to me, "modern democracies" really meant "democratically elected republics".
Having read other posts on this page, I realise I was mistaken. It may be that the Utah lawmakers made the same mistake as I.
That said, I believe that with better educated "mobs" and higher technology, we are edging towards what I would call "true democracies", meaning that the people take control more and more. Government powers have already been reduced from telling the people what to do, to legistlating what people may do. As more people get connected, and more people have their say, and more people get organised and driven, then more decisions and driving power come from the people. Eventually the role of goverment will have to change again, and become a manager for peoples opinions (to keep things together). This will be when "the people rule the people for the good of the people".
We're not there yet, but we will be when we have online voting, not just for parties but on portfolios and/or topics, and the ability to change our votes on the fly, not just at "election time".
Never mind the actual fact that the form of Government here in the United States is a Representative Republic.
Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...
Heaven forbid people actually knowing the definitions of the words they speak, or perhaps pass fourth grade social studies!
Sigh. See attached. I'm so fucking tired of correcting this same basic error from all you self-assured fools.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1728628&cid=32997544
Even better would be if they would actually teach some of the fundamentals of our form of government. Teach what a Republic is and what a Democracy is and the important differences between them.
I hope that schools would teach an apple is, and what a fruit is and the important differences between them.
For talking big about the us constitution you certainly don't seem to have passed elementary social studies,
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1728628&cid=32997544
Sharia is democracy.
Actually it's not. Sharia is a type of law. Not a type of government. Just like Halakha or Common.
Someone modded this down, and I'm curious if it is because the correct names of the two largest political parties in America are not all that relevant, or if this was an attempt at censorship. Anyway, I've got plenty of karma, so I'm going to repost it.
All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.
No. It's "democratic party" See here
"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2]
Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.
Actually the post that I responded to was asserting that the US gov't was not a republic, claiming that those who thought it a republic were brainwashed. So there was a contradiction and various other shortcomings.
No, I never asserted that the US government is not a republic. In fact, I agree: the US is a republic. I am just arguing that it is also a democracy and that the reason given by most to say it is not is based on the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies. The perpetuation of the misconception is the "brainwashing" part. That's all.
The post I responded to merely quotes three dictionary definitions of democracy. I see no assertion that a republic is a kind of democracy, just an attack on someone who rejects the vague label of democracy and accepts the more specific label of republic. You are being extraordinarily generous in your interpretation of this post. :-)
Nope, as I said above he is interpreting my post exactly as I meant it. My original post has nothing to do with the term "republic" and whether it applies to the US or not (in fact, I believe it does). Just with the term "democracy"
You obviously don't know what trolling or an idiot are.
How come the biggest discussion threads on /. seem to revolve around semantics?
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Wrong! ...in answer to the obvious question of why the Legislature feels it is necessary to stick their benevolent guiding fist into the school curriculum: "Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum."
IOW, this bill is yet more grandstanding troglodyte tea party propoganda.
and DAMN, you would think that the paucity of political philosophy being taught is schools is already sufficient to keep kids from learning evil ideas, but you would be wrong.
look sig is kool
HOLY SHIT I made my signature about this subject three months ago. And sorry for the caps, I sorta freaked. If it isn't already stated in the other 1000 comments, the U.S. is indeed both a republic and a democracy.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Funny that you mention Germany because by German standards a democratic vote is direct and equal and the US Presidential election is neither.
There is actually UTOPIA in Utah.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
Our founders said so, so it's more than a mundane fact, it's the best! The same founders who 'granted' voting rights to men with property, setup the electoral college, sanctioned slavery!...these founders were the wealthy privileged men jockeying for a government that might hold together in the face of the enlightenment; nominally 'democratic' while maintaining the status quo that feathered their nests. The only 'freedom' dear to their hearts was from the wealthy privileged men that were sucking _their_ blood, the English aristocracy. They were not against the concept of blood-sucking, per se, and they were absolutely _not_ selfless heroes fighting for anything but their own revenue stream.
That fight is still ongoing and it woulda been over too if it weren't for those pesky kids.
look sig is kool
yup.
We have people THAT represent us in OUR government.
THAT could also be who.
Note to self: Do not comment on slashdot while having three other conservations at the same time.
Good thing you point out there. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all emerged within the last 2 millennia. Buddhism is over a millennium older, and Hinduism even older still. Comparing the older traditions to the newer ones, it looks like a game of telephone that got really out of hand. It also gives strong evidence that the laws of entropy hold for all forms of information. Indeed the insights of the East have only very recently been properly disseminated to the West. Prior to the modern age these rich traditions only made it to the West in the most obfuscated and corrupted forms. Thus the Abrahamic religions are a ridiculous muddle of nonsense interpreted by fools.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Whether JC could read or write, who knows? Is there an account of his reading or writing in the New Testament? You know those books are apocryphal, not journalistic anyway. One should not conclude one way or the other, even based on probabilities. One presumes if Jesus could write he would have put down more on paper, as did the Buddha and many ancient writers much older who survive to this day. But it appears this prophet, twin to Horus in most respects, is more of a legend than a founder. Fascinating phenomenon, religion!
-- thinkyhead software and media
Yawn, Boring. Nobody but you cares, annoying eh?
Nothing better to do than post on a dead thread....hmmm
Your only highly rated in your own mind as far as I can tell.
Still stirring you up is fun, the desperation to *WIN* you show is precious!
Pro tip; Get a real life.
Bye now, I've got a life to get on with!
Hmmn. My ignorance is showing.
1890 - 2010
1897
1955
1957
1959
1995
2007
Requiem for the American Dream
United States was involved in military actions in 1995 - Bosnia no fly zone , Iraq No Fly Zone and occupation of Bosnia following Dayton Agreement.
Indian Wars ended in 1891, so 1891 to spring of 1898. 1935 to 1941, 1954 to 1960, 1975 to 1979, 1980-1982, 1984 to 1990, then with no fly zones over Iraq, war or military action since 1990.
Clearly I'm out of my comfort zone. I half-quoted something I heard in one of Noam Chomsky's rants but couldn't find the document he referred-to. This seems fairly similar:
* http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Requiem for the American Dream
By that list, if a US embassy is attacked it blocks out the whole year as a war year.
The author has the casualty rates for the first entry (300 at Wounded Knee) wrong - 150 died, 40-60 were wounded on the Lakota side with 33 dead and 31 wounded on the US Army side. Notably the highest US Army death tolls after Little Bighorn.
His entry for Cuba - CUBA 1898-1902 (-?)Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base. The note about Gitmo and the ?, does that mean in his mind we are still at war with Cuba because the US has a lease on Gitmo, it's not "still holding", it's a lease. By that, do all the Lend Lease base leases the US had and have count as an occupation?
What source do you refer to? Or is this all from memory? :D
Requiem for the American Dream
You can't recast the Tea Party's agenda any more than I can. It's set by Rupert Murdoch and the Faux News crew, at the behest of billionaires like the Koch brothers. They pay top dollar to keep that network broadcasting their message to cut taxes, and the only input they accept from the non-billionaire club is the crap about the right-wing social agenda. Want to complain about abortion or gays? Go ahead. Want to complain about drugs? Sure, whatever. Moslems? Yeah, profile them in airports if you want. Black people? *cough*. Patriotism? Hey, as long as you're buying more ammo and more jets, wave them flags! Want to complain about the economy? Well, umm -- DEATH PANELS! PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY! NO NEW TAXES! LIBERAL AGENDA!
Seriously, the Faux News network is the Billionaire's PAC, and it's a hell of a lot easier to own a TV network than it is to launder that much in political donations.
John
Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Which is why founding fathers described their creation as a republic back in the day. For a more modern perspective lets see how the US government describes itself today: >
Now that is an answer I can agree with. Argument settled, I hope.
An aggregate popular measure is invalid for arguments because we know that people vote with consideration of the limitations of the system. I vote, but I know that others in heavily leaning states are less motivated to than those in swing states. Similarly, campaigning is heavily targeted at swing states. This would not be the case in a purely popular vote.
You want everyone to be a patriotic idealist, too stupid to inspect the mechanisms of the system and adjust their behavior accordingly. You don't just stop there, though. You appear to be arguing that everyone *is* a patriotic idealist.
Quite simply put: The popular vote counts would be vastly different if we based our presidential elections on the popular vote.
If you deny that, you're either an idiot or a troll.