I was replying specifically to the person who said, "Well that document did give them the power to make those decisions.... so.... Yeah. There." I was pointing out that, in fact, the Constitution does not give them the power to make those decisions. I was not arguing about whether or not it is appropriate for them to have that power.
I believe that the Constitution did not specify who had the final say as to what was and was not Constitutional for two basic reasons. One, the Framers expected each and every government official to consider whether a given action or bill was Constitutional and not conduct said action, or vote for said bill, if they believed that it was not. And two, the Framers believed that the Constitution was clearly written and easily understood by anyone who genuinely desired to do so.
Are you saying that those who practice male homosexual sex do not have greater health risks than those who do not (note, even heterosexual anal sex has those same increases in health risks)?
You apparently are unaware that those who practice male homosexual sex are subject to significantly greater health risks than those who practice heterosexual sex. Whether you like it or not, being gay (openly or otherwise) comes with the cost of increased risk of health problems. These increased health risks played a role in society frowning upon homosexual behavior. There is a significant possibility that those health risks had something to do with why most religions have a prohibition of homosexual behavior.
Actually, the Constitution does not anywhere specify that the Supreme Court gets to interpret what is and what is not Constitutional. That is a power that the Supreme Court gave itself. Of course, considering that the Framers of the Constitution were still in government at the time and did not object to this understanding lends weight to it. Although the fact that the ruling in which it did so was in favor of the primary author of the Constitution probably has something to do with why that was the case.
Most communist revolutions are a revolution by the working masses to remove the landed gentry from positions of power and control.
That is patently false. Most revolutions are by the children of the moneyed class who have too much time on their hands (usually the younger children who are not being groomed to take their parents' place in the power structure).
Although it is certainly possible he used the general vague recollection (various minor references in legend and story) of the Minoan civilization as a template to provide slightly more credibility to his story.
The main difference is that there are other ancient references to Troy in addition to Homer. As far as I have been able to discover, the only ancient reference we have to Atlantis is one place in Plato's writings.
I have read your arguments and seen you repeatedly express contempt for the general public. This confirms my distrust of the education establishment. I do understand the concepts of modern education. Your comment about going "all 1890s schoolhouse" sums up a large part of the problem. Please provide some evidence that the 1890s schoolhouse was inferior to the current one.
There is no reason to engage you in a reasonable and respectful way because I have read your posts on here and you have never demonstrated even a passing acquaintance with reality. When I was in college I thought like you do. Then I got out in the real world and learned how things work. Guess what? I work fewer hours for more pay today than I did in 2000. Of course, I recognized that my career was a dead end and changed careers in that time.
You are a fan of increased regulation of campaign finance, despite the fact that every time they have passed a campaign finance law, the problem of money in campaigns has gotten worse. I really would love to know where you get your "facts", they bear no resemblance to the real world. For the record, I have never/b. watched Fox News.
You are clueless about the people who talk about smaller government. It is people like you who support the advance of fascism in government. You support the expansion of government power. I have seen you post such things repeatedly here. Most people who talk about shrinking the size of government understand that government is inherently inefficient. Those I know who wish to see the size of government reduced are talking about how much money it spends and how many people work for the government and how many laws/regulations are on the books. They are not favoring an autocratic government. Most of them did not like the Patriot Act when it was passed, but recognized that most of the rhetoric about it was from people who actually approved of it (Obama, for example), but were using talking against it as a political weapon to gain power for themselves.
Schools are getting worse because too many people are trying to use schools to inculcate values that are at odds with those of the parents. You know, American education was very good before there existed any such thing as education majors, let alone "experts in curriculum design". My personal opinion is that your specialty is a symptom of what is wrong with the American education system today.
The best way to teach children is to have it done by people who decide how to teach children based on the personality and gifts of each specific child. A curriculum expert is someone who tries to design a curriculum for schools that work like a factory. I consider the entire academic discipline of education to be a complete waste of resources.
Likewise, it's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom (hypothetically) to rob a bank and then face punishment after the fact.
No, actually that is not true. The government is allowed to stop you from robbing a bank. The courts have often ruled that the government cannot stop you from publishing, even when they can punish you after you have done so.
The problem with calling all of that "McCarthyism" is that it implies that McCarthy was a prime mover in those activities, when in fact he was a grand stander who played little actual role in causing harm. The reason for the focus on McCarthy is because he was a Republican. Most of those who caused the "harm" were Democrats. The House Un-American Activities Committee was chaired and run by Democrats.
The term "McCarthyism" is used to blame Republicans for the anti-communist excesses of Democrats, so the OP is correct. It would be better to say "It is like Woodrow Wilson and FDR all over again."
Shrink government and you'll magically see the amount of money in elections diminish. I believe it is easier, with less chance of abuse of the system my way than your way. I don't see any way to reduce the amount of money in elections as long as so much of our economy is dependent upon the whims of the government.
If you think that a consensus can be reached amongst the American Public on ANYTHING, then you are vastly more optimistic than I am. Do you watch the news? Do you follow politics?
And this is what is wrong with public education. Unless there is a consensus among the general American Public, public education will continue to fail. Public education cannot succeed unless the general public agrees as to what purpose it is intended to serve.
it is MY job to apply community standards
Where do "community standards" come from if you reject the idea of listening to what the general public (the community) has to say on the issue. You are an elitist pig, who thinks he knows enough to tell other people how they should live their lives.
If you are such an expert in curriculum design, how come education in the U.S. has gotten worse as your discipline has gotten more advanced?
Yet you still hear people say that there's "too much regulation". "Too much government". When corporations are the ones funding election campaigns, what do you expect lawmakers to do but whatever the donors say.
Do you not see the inherent contradiction in saying that there isn't too much government (at least that is how the first part of this parses for me), followed by saying that lawmakers do what the corporations tell them to do? If the lawmakers are passing laws that the corporation tell them too, how can getting them to get rid of some of those laws not be a good thing?
It's not what they know about me that is true that bothers me. It is what they know about me that isn't true. Ultimately, the problem with this type of database is not that they know too much about people (although there are significant problems with that as well), it s what they "know" about people that is false that causes problems.
Yes, it does have such a responsibility, but I would say that for the most part it fails to do so. The fact that the union dues are mandatory means that the teachers' unions have even less incentive to worry about what teachers actually want. The problem with the way things are setup is that if a teacher decides to campaign against the positions championed by union leaders they are subject to significant negative consequences. If there are few voices out there telling teachers that the leadership position is wrong, which way do you think the majority is going to vote in union elections?
The concensus must be among the American people or public education doesn't work. If the American people do not have a concensus as to what makes a good citizen, it is not possible to educate children in a way that most people will agree to.
Your first sentence is exactly why public education in America is failing. What children are taught in public schools should most certainly consist of a concensus among the parents of those children. Who are you to decie what someone else's children should be taught? Why should I believe that you are more likely to have their best interests at heart than their parents? Your attitude towards parents is entirely too common among educators. If the parents have not bought into what the schools are teaching, the children will in most cases fail to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
I was replying specifically to the person who said, "Well that document did give them the power to make those decisions.... so.... Yeah. There." I was pointing out that, in fact, the Constitution does not give them the power to make those decisions. I was not arguing about whether or not it is appropriate for them to have that power.
I believe that the Constitution did not specify who had the final say as to what was and was not Constitutional for two basic reasons. One, the Framers expected each and every government official to consider whether a given action or bill was Constitutional and not conduct said action, or vote for said bill, if they believed that it was not. And two, the Framers believed that the Constitution was clearly written and easily understood by anyone who genuinely desired to do so.
Are you saying that those who practice male homosexual sex do not have greater health risks than those who do not (note, even heterosexual anal sex has those same increases in health risks)?
Or "So and so is a muslim and laughed at 9/11". Instant death sentence.
Please cite and example of where that actually occurred.
You apparently are unaware that those who practice male homosexual sex are subject to significantly greater health risks than those who practice heterosexual sex. Whether you like it or not, being gay (openly or otherwise) comes with the cost of increased risk of health problems. These increased health risks played a role in society frowning upon homosexual behavior. There is a significant possibility that those health risks had something to do with why most religions have a prohibition of homosexual behavior.
Actually, the Constitution does not anywhere specify that the Supreme Court gets to interpret what is and what is not Constitutional. That is a power that the Supreme Court gave itself. Of course, considering that the Framers of the Constitution were still in government at the time and did not object to this understanding lends weight to it. Although the fact that the ruling in which it did so was in favor of the primary author of the Constitution probably has something to do with why that was the case.
You do know that corporations tend to give more to Democratic candidates than they do to Republican candidates, don't you?
French Revolution. Russian Revolution. Iranian Revolution. There are three examples.
Most communist revolutions are a revolution by the working masses to remove the landed gentry from positions of power and control.
That is patently false. Most revolutions are by the children of the moneyed class who have too much time on their hands (usually the younger children who are not being groomed to take their parents' place in the power structure).
Although it is certainly possible he used the general vague recollection (various minor references in legend and story) of the Minoan civilization as a template to provide slightly more credibility to his story.
The main difference is that there are other ancient references to Troy in addition to Homer. As far as I have been able to discover, the only ancient reference we have to Atlantis is one place in Plato's writings.
I have read your arguments and seen you repeatedly express contempt for the general public. This confirms my distrust of the education establishment. I do understand the concepts of modern education. Your comment about going "all 1890s schoolhouse" sums up a large part of the problem. Please provide some evidence that the 1890s schoolhouse was inferior to the current one.
There is no reason to engage you in a reasonable and respectful way because I have read your posts on here and you have never demonstrated even a passing acquaintance with reality. When I was in college I thought like you do. Then I got out in the real world and learned how things work. Guess what? I work fewer hours for more pay today than I did in 2000. Of course, I recognized that my career was a dead end and changed careers in that time.
You are a fan of increased regulation of campaign finance, despite the fact that every time they have passed a campaign finance law, the problem of money in campaigns has gotten worse. I really would love to know where you get your "facts", they bear no resemblance to the real world. For the record, I have never/b. watched Fox News.
You are clueless about the people who talk about smaller government. It is people like you who support the advance of fascism in government. You support the expansion of government power. I have seen you post such things repeatedly here. Most people who talk about shrinking the size of government understand that government is inherently inefficient. Those I know who wish to see the size of government reduced are talking about how much money it spends and how many people work for the government and how many laws/regulations are on the books. They are not favoring an autocratic government. Most of them did not like the Patriot Act when it was passed, but recognized that most of the rhetoric about it was from people who actually approved of it (Obama, for example), but were using talking against it as a political weapon to gain power for themselves.
Schools are getting worse because too many people are trying to use schools to inculcate values that are at odds with those of the parents. You know, American education was very good before there existed any such thing as education majors, let alone "experts in curriculum design". My personal opinion is that your specialty is a symptom of what is wrong with the American education system today.
The best way to teach children is to have it done by people who decide how to teach children based on the personality and gifts of each specific child. A curriculum expert is someone who tries to design a curriculum for schools that work like a factory. I consider the entire academic discipline of education to be a complete waste of resources.
Instead of making everybody change their clocks, Congress could require companies to allow people to make those changes.
You know, those of us who want the extra daylight could just get up an hour earlier and go into work earlier.
Likewise, it's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom (hypothetically) to rob a bank and then face punishment after the fact.
No, actually that is not true. The government is allowed to stop you from robbing a bank. The courts have often ruled that the government cannot stop you from publishing, even when they can punish you after you have done so.
The problem with calling all of that "McCarthyism" is that it implies that McCarthy was a prime mover in those activities, when in fact he was a grand stander who played little actual role in causing harm. The reason for the focus on McCarthy is because he was a Republican. Most of those who caused the "harm" were Democrats. The House Un-American Activities Committee was chaired and run by Democrats.
The term "McCarthyism" is used to blame Republicans for the anti-communist excesses of Democrats, so the OP is correct. It would be better to say "It is like Woodrow Wilson and FDR all over again."
Shrink government and you'll magically see the amount of money in elections diminish. I believe it is easier, with less chance of abuse of the system my way than your way. I don't see any way to reduce the amount of money in elections as long as so much of our economy is dependent upon the whims of the government.
If you think that a consensus can be reached amongst the American Public on ANYTHING, then you are vastly more optimistic than I am. Do you watch the news? Do you follow politics?
And this is what is wrong with public education. Unless there is a consensus among the general American Public, public education will continue to fail. Public education cannot succeed unless the general public agrees as to what purpose it is intended to serve.
it is MY job to apply community standards
Where do "community standards" come from if you reject the idea of listening to what the general public (the community) has to say on the issue. You are an elitist pig, who thinks he knows enough to tell other people how they should live their lives.
If you are such an expert in curriculum design, how come education in the U.S. has gotten worse as your discipline has gotten more advanced?
Yet you still hear people say that there's "too much regulation". "Too much government". When corporations are the ones funding election campaigns, what do you expect lawmakers to do but whatever the donors say.
Do you not see the inherent contradiction in saying that there isn't too much government (at least that is how the first part of this parses for me), followed by saying that lawmakers do what the corporations tell them to do? If the lawmakers are passing laws that the corporation tell them too, how can getting them to get rid of some of those laws not be a good thing?
It's not what they know about me that is true that bothers me. It is what they know about me that isn't true. Ultimately, the problem with this type of database is not that they know too much about people (although there are significant problems with that as well), it s what they "know" about people that is false that causes problems.
I do not have a link to it at the moment, but there was a story about just that on slashdot earlier this year.
Yes, it does have such a responsibility, but I would say that for the most part it fails to do so. The fact that the union dues are mandatory means that the teachers' unions have even less incentive to worry about what teachers actually want. The problem with the way things are setup is that if a teacher decides to campaign against the positions championed by union leaders they are subject to significant negative consequences. If there are few voices out there telling teachers that the leadership position is wrong, which way do you think the majority is going to vote in union elections?
The concensus must be among the American people or public education doesn't work. If the American people do not have a concensus as to what makes a good citizen, it is not possible to educate children in a way that most people will agree to.
Your first sentence is exactly why public education in America is failing. What children are taught in public schools should most certainly consist of a concensus among the parents of those children. Who are you to decie what someone else's children should be taught? Why should I believe that you are more likely to have their best interests at heart than their parents? Your attitude towards parents is entirely too common among educators. If the parents have not bought into what the schools are teaching, the children will in most cases fail to learn.