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.
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
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?
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.
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
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?
School children even recite it every day. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands..."
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
.. 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'
It's not more accurate. We're a representative democracy otherwise known as a democratic republic. A republic does not suggest that you're voting on representation. It's equally valid to have a system like they did in Rome where the oldest citizens are automatically representing the people. Consequently, the term representative democracy is the term to use or democratic republic.
a democracy is where everyone makes every decision
Wrong. What you're thinking of is direct democracy. Contrast that with, say, representative democracy.
...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".
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.
Which is why you'll never find anybody teaching that we're a representative republic. We're a representative democracy, we have elected officials that vote for us, which is typically what they mean by representative democracy rather that being a republic. It's also why a lot of people refer to the US as a democracy because we are a type of democracy, even if not always directly. And despite what the founding fathers thought, the constitution ended up forming a representative democracy, which to be fair to them didn't really exist at the time. Representative democracy
They can, but when it's some sort of bullshit like this which the legislature shouldn't be doing at all, the resources should be spent elsewhere. Just because you can do more than one thing at a time, doesn't mean that wasting time on stupid things like this isn't harmful.
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.
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?
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.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):
democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)
Or Merriam Webster:
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)
Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:
democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)
Regardless of that, it must be noted that the article makes no mention of Utah making the decision because "democracy" suggests a relation to the "Democratic" party.
1 down, 308 million to go. My plan is coming together ...
s...
l...
o...
w...
l...
y...
Make that a "Freedom overlord", and let's go for it.
Why can't
Yes and it needs to stop. They don't even know what they're saying. Effectively the pledge of allegiance is an oath to blindly serve and follow your government; if they tell you to slaughter innocents it's okay, because you've sworn to that anyway and besides, american lives are way more important than foreign scum.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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).
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."
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!
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.
It only became a Federation after we discovered the warp drive... :)
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
I loath to repeat myself but Slashdot tends to bury conversations you don't follow directly.
More accurately, the correct term for the United States Government is neither democracy or republic. It is a federation. Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
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.
And Chewbacca was a wookiee on Endor! That just doesn't make sense!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
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.
It's a government mandate. I think "Freedom Czar" would be more appropriate, in a surreal kind of way.
You are correct but even in the article you linked to we read: "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered." In other words, a compound constitutional republic, which is what this Utah bill calls the U.S. So calling the U.S. a representative democracy is accurate, it's just not the most accurate. A modified (compound) constitutional republic is the best term. Yes, it's largely semantics but the fine distinctions are important.
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.
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"
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
The point of the Pledge of Allegiance is not to actually teach kids anything, but to indoctrinate them into being good loyal patriotic Americans ready and willing to do incredibly stupid things (e.g. sign up for the army to go fight in a country they've never heard of who poses no threat to us) on behalf of their country. It's the same sort of instinct that led my schoolteacher to use class time to force me and my classmates to make yellow ribbons and care packages for soldiers back during the 1991 Gulf War, despite my opposition to the war.
The "under God" bit, besides being completely unconstitutional, was introduced in the 1950's solely to demonstrate how much better we were than the godless Commies because we didn't try to indoctrinate our kids with lies about patriotism and duty to country (yeah right).
I am officially gone from
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?
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
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.
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.
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]
You're completely wrong; a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. The U.S. is both.
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
I believe the correct term is Freedom Czar.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
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.
Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:[7]
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity[6] but decided against it - knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.[8]
Also amusing:
One objection[18] states that a democratic republic built on freedom of dissent should not require its citizens to pledge allegiance to it, [...] Another objection lies in the fact that the people who are most likely to recite the Pledge every day, small children in schools, cannot really give their consent or even completely understand the Pledge they are taking
Most people can't even completely understand the pledge, amusingly most people don't even associate the term pledge with an oath. It's just "something you do" and "you're supposed to."
I'm amused that there's actually controversy over this; but dismayed that most complaints are due to religion and the use of the term "God." The other arguments seem more legitimate, and I really did think I was the only one that noticed.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
*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.
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!
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
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
... Effectively the pledge of allegiance is an oath to blindly serve and follow your government;...
Not necessarily. It is a problem, but it does depend on the individual's view of the republic. At least according to the vision the nation was built upon, the republic is not synonymous with the government. Rather, the government should answer to the people and represent their concerns and interests. Thus, when I personally cite the pledge of allegiance it is to the principles of the Constitution and to my fellow Americans, not to the lying scum politicians currently in the drivers seat.
(Not all of them are lying scum, but the majority certainly are.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
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
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.
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~
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.
and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands
A federation is a bit too vague, a collection of states retaining control over internal affairs. Both democracy and republic share more details, supreme authority in citizens and elected (directly or indirectly) representatives to exercise power. However republic ads one more constraint, a head of state that is not a monarch. So if forced to choose only one word I would say republic is the most descriptive.
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.
> 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.
"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.
To further your point, ask how you could possibly give allegiance to a flag? Can a flag give you orders? Does a flag have interests you can support? It's nonsense, and nonsense accepted by rote is mind-damaging. (Which is what those seeking power want.)
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
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.
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.'
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.