I'm quite glad we live in a republic, where the stupid elect those who have demonstrated they at least have machiavellian intelligence. It's fortunate for all of us that one breed of intelligence usually includes others as well. -_-
As it is patently obvious to anyone who followed the Georgia/Russia conflagration to any degree, it was the Georgians who launched a surprise attack on South Ossetia...
This is patently obvious to anyone? Hardly. Before accusing another poster of ignorance, perhaps you yourself should read up on the subject. Here is a good place to start:
OK, here's a test: name any country that "doesn't like" Belgium, or New Zealand or Sweden or... or (the list goes on).
Right, name the last time the world depended on Belgium, New Zealand, Sweden or... (the list goes on) to solve any problem, or come to anyone's aid in their time of need, or make any tough decision on a matter of any international consequence.
Like it or not, after WW2 the US became the only country in the West to have any major international responsibility. Every NATO country depends on the US almost exclusively for their national defense. Because of the global scope of US military involvement during/after WW2 and during the Cold War, to this day the US is the only country with the responsibility to keep rogue nations and aggressors in check.
When you're the only guy who has to make all the tough decisions, obviously you're going to make some enemies. The US has far more allies than enemies, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
The US has made mistakes of course, but has also brought a tremendous amount of peace and prosperity to a big portion of the world. I don't think the answer to today's threats is for the US to withdraw from its international responsibilities, stop making the tough decisions and become more like Sweden, just voting "present" and hoping that won't piss anyone off.
So are you saying that Obama is opposed to private schools? Is that it? If not, what is your point? My point is simply that you gush over private schools, while ignoring the reality that public schools have to deal with.
What in the world are you talking about? Nobody is against private schools. I'm not gushing over private schools. I'm saying we should identify the things that make our college (both public and private) and private school systems work so well, and apply those concepts to the public school system, where possible.
We can't apply everything - for example we can't have public schools denying certain students admission (or can we? I don't know, think about it) - but principles like school choice, competition for students and their voucher money, competitive teacher salaries based on performance, the ability to fire teachers for performance-related issues, these things will most definitely work to improve the quality of public schools.
Stop trying to champion your anti-union cause and start trying to figure out how to make parents care more about their kids.
I'm talking about how to improve the quality of our public schools. You're talking about how to improve the quality of the students. I'm talking about changing something that the government actually has the power to do. You're talking about changing something only individuals can do for themselves.
You want the government to figure out how to get parents to care more about their kids? Good luck with that one. Let's focus on reality, on things the government can actually do - including the changes I proposed. And who knows, perhaps giving poor parents the same power that the rich have - the power to decide where their kids go to school - will encourage them to take a more active role in their kids' education.
To clarify, I'd argue it's pretty much impossible for the government to make *current* parents care more about their kids. You see, I don't think there's a causal relationship between parental income and parental involvement in education. The real relationship is between parental education level and parental involvement in their kids' education.
You want parents to care more about their kids? Start with today's kids. Improve our public schools by allowing school choice, among other reforms. Give today's kids a better education. Then when those kids grow up and become parents, they'll care more about their own kids.
Under a good voucher system, the money should follow the student. In this case, there would be no additional cost to parents who choose to send their children to a different public school, while if they choose a private school they would be responsible for the balance of the tuition. The solution is economically sound, and fair.
I don't see how you can argue that giving parents choice and options in their child's education is a bad thing. For everyone who argues that we need more parental involvement, of course we do, and giving parents the power of self-determination in their child's education would go a long way toward achieving this goal.
The voucher system would disproportionately help poor children. Children of the rich already go to the school of their parents' choice. The voucher system won't change that at all. Vouchers will simply give poor parents the same power that the rich have - to choose the education they feel is best for their children, without being over-burdened by the cost.
Fine, but Caribou Barbie's idiotic stance on abstinence only sex ed ought to disqualify her if nothing else does.
Perhaps you should do a little research before resorting to name-calling. You are 100% factually incorrect regarding Palin's stance on sex ed. I already addressed it in another post:
you're right about this issue and we can't do anything about it
Which basically means that your argument falls apart.
Quite to the contrary. Read my previous post and use your capacity for logic and reason. We can't make ALL schools equal. Private schools will always have the advantage that they don't have to accept every student, while public schools do. However, we can do plenty to address all the other inadequacies of the public school system, as I address clearly in my other posts.
Great way to tackle the problem... we need the government to implement a policy that will make "parents care" more about their kid's education? How in the world does the federal government have any power to make "parents care"? How about suggesting something that the government can actually do.
Wait a minute, maybe you're on to something. What about if we give parents the power to decide which school their kids can go to? Maybe parents will "care more" if they actually have the power to DO SOMETHING about improving their kids' education? Maybe they'll actually do a little research about which schools are the best, and take a more active role in their kids' education?
I dispute "best college system in the world." Here, in England...
I didn't mean to imply that American colleges are better than English ones, or Canadian, etc. The point is that they ALL benefit from the same principle I want to apply to the American public school system: competition for your business and money. Colleges around the world benefit from the system of competition, even the public state colleges here in the U.S., and we should apply a similar system to our public schools.
That the public school system has to deal with everyone, while private schools can pick and choose, and simply throw out students who don't "fit in"? Did you take that into account in your comment?
For the sake of space I didn't, but I just replied to that issue a few posts up from yours. Short answer: you're right about this issue and we can't do anything about it, except demand better discipline at public schools.
All I know is that McCain's running mate is against international science research, and is a Young Earth Creationist. She also believes that "sex education" means telling kids not to have sex.
You're wrong about Palin's stance on sex ed. Your view is based on a commonly mis-interpreted response to a questionaire she filled out, saying that she would not support "explicit sex-ed programs". The questionaire was poorly written because it didn't describe its meaning of "explicit". Palin assumed it meant explicit discussions of sexual techniques, which she very reasonably would not support. Here is the exact question and response:
Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
She misunderstood the question, and her response was jumped on by the media. Here is her actual position, from an interview with People Magazine:
SP: I've always been a proponent of making sure kids understand -- even in schools -- they'd better take preventative measures so that they don't find themselves in these less than ideal circumstances. Perhaps Bristol could be a good example to other young women that life happens and preventative measures are, first and foremost, the option that should be considered --
SW: Do you mean abstinence or contraception?
SP: Well, both. Ideally abstinence. But we have not been ones to say that students, should not know what preventive measures are all about. I've been taken aback by some criticism that mainstream media has thrown my way saying, Oh, what a hypocrite she is and she's now learned her lesson because she's been against sex education in the schools. And I'm like, when? Where? When have I ever said that there should be no sex education taught in our homes or even in our schools?
I addressed her stance on evolution education in a previous post in this thread, so I won't repeat it here.
I agree. There's a difference between teaching - as in teaching that it is "truth", or at least the accepted "theory", and discussion - as in to provide information about it. Evolution alone should be taught. Everything else should not be banned from being discussed.
Another, perhaps more important point, is this: the President, and the VP, have no power whatsoever to change public school curriculum. So hypothetically, if we ever have a candidate who thinks creationism should be mandated in science class, it wouldn't matter in this sense, because he would have no power to make this happen. Even Congress has no power to influence public school curriculum. It's all decided locally.
I think if Americans had a better understanding of the powers and structure of government, there would be much less worry over such trivial matters.
You're correct, private schools don't have to accept every student, while public schools generally do. In this manner private schools will generally maintain better performance than public schools. And there is nothing we can do about this.
Going into more detail, I think public schools should have more authority to discipline their students. The discipline system in struggling public schools has been so watered down that there are little to no consequences to being disruptive in class. The legal system is partly to blame for this: public schools are afraid of getting sued for disciplining students.
A certain amount of fair and harsh discipline should be allowed - I'm not talking corporal punishment (though that certainly worked in the past...), but mandatory detentions and other punishments should be enforced, regardless of whether the parent approves. If the parents don't like the way a school is disciplining their children, they should be free to take their children to a different public school - using the voucher system.
Palin's stance on creationism? You mean that evolution should be taught exclusively in science class, as it is in Alaska? And that there's nothing wrong with discussing alternative views, in an appropriate context, without putting them in the curriculum? What's wrong with that?
I'm a scientist. I think that intelligent design and creationism are hogwash. But because of America's foundation in religion, they are concepts that anyone will come across outside of school. I think they should be discussed, at the teacher's discretion, especially if a student brings up the question, but should not be mandated in the curriculum.
Palin said in one interview "teach both... don't be afraid of information". The next day she went on to clarify her position by saying that they shouldn't be part of the curriculum, but it's ok to discuss them if a student brings it up. Actually here's the exact quote: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
Why can't McCain properly defend his education policy? It is the most important issue facing our nation, and it is where McCain is leaps and bounds ahead of Obama!
We have the best private education system in the world. We have the best college education system in the world, both public and private. We have one of the worst public school systems in the developed world. Why? What's the difference between our tremendously successful college system and private system, and our horrendous public school system? Guess what, it's NOT MONEY. Per-student spending in public schools is almost DOUBLE what it is in private schools! Surprised? You certainly didn't hear that in tonight's debate. Only the absolute top most elite private schools cost more per student than we spend on our public schools, and the difference is not much, just 10-20% more. And students at those elite schools get WAY more in return for that extra 10-20%. Oh, and public school teachers earn more than private school teachers, so that's not it either.
So what's the difference between how our public, government-run schools operate, and how our colleges and private schools operate? Here are the differences:
1. No teachers unions in private schools and colleges.
2. School choice: private schools and colleges must compete for your dollars. Public schools don't; the government decides which school you must attend, based on what neighborhood you live in.
Let's go into #1.
The teachers union is the most dangerous organization on the planet. They are more of a threat to our nation than Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined. They are ruining the education of our children and destroying our only hope of maintaining our prosperity and peace.
The teachers union has made it impossible to fire teachers for poor performance. To be fired, a teacher basically has to break the law or molest a student. They can't be fired for simply being a terrible teacher. It's gotten so bad that at public schools across the country, bad teachers are paid full-time salaries to simply sit in the teachers' lounge all day and not teach! Schools are forced to do this because they don't want these bad teachers anywhere near their students, but they haven't done anything that the union says they can be fired for.
In private schools and colleges, teacher pay is based on performance. In public schools, because of teachers union demands, pay is based on seniority (i.e. how long they've been working there). You can't pay good teachers more and bad teachers less, and therefore you can't attract and reward the best teaching talent. Public teachers as a whole lose the motivation that drives the private sector to work harder and better: more money.
Finally, the teachers union is 100% opposed to school choice. Why? Because it would force all public teachers to work harder and compete for their job, just like everyone does in every job in the private sector.
And this leads directly into Point #2.
It is school choice, in the form of vouchers, that will save our public education system. The way our system works now, schools tell the government how many students they have each year, and the government funds them with X amount of dollars per student. The way school choice will work is this: instead of the government giving those dollars to the school, that money will be given directly to the parents in the form of a voucher. The parents can then take that voucher and use it to send their kids to any school they want, public or private.
What affect will this have? Competition. The same thing that makes our private schools and colleges perform so well. They'll have to wise up, stop wasting money, become more efficient, and start teaching better, or else they'll start losing students. Parents will choose to send their kids to better-performing schools.
Cue the teachers union yelling "But you'll be taking money away from already struggling schools!". Of course, that's the point, and that's a good thing - because the struggling schoo
The problem with health care in America is that it is too expensive. The actual cost of health care -- doctors visits, hospital stays, operations, emergency room visits -- is too expensive. This in turn raises the cost of health insurance to the point that many people cannot afford it. The high cost of American health care cannot be solved simply by changing which pocket pays for it. Changing the payer from the individual (through out-of-pocket or insurance premiums) to the "government" -- i.e. taxpayers -- will do nothing to solve the fundamental problem: that health care services are too expensive. To solve the problem, we must understand WHY our health care costs so much.
Reason #1: The Legal System: Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
1a: Doctors' and Hospitals' skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums
Medical malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last 20 years. Doctors and hospitals must compensate for this by charging more for their services. The cost of malpractice insurance has increased because overly-aggressive law firms (and their clients) regularly sue doctors and hospitals for any perceived mistake or even just bad luck, and the defendants are forced to settle for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. There are of course legitimate cases of medical malpractice: if a surgeon removes the wrong kidney, for example. However, the vast majority of malpractice lawsuits are baseless, stemming from common incidents such as misdiagnoses, ineffective treatments, or missed diseases during screenings. These incidents are not criminal or negligent in nature, but are simply results of the unfortunate nature of the medical profession: that it is as much an art as a science. Our legal system must be reformed to protect doctors and hospitals from the deluge of unjust malpractice lawsuits that is destroying health care in America.
1b: Unnecessary and medically-unjustified tests performed by doctors and hospitals to protect themselves from lawsuits
The threat of malpractice lawsuits does far more harm than simply increasing the cost of health care services. In fact, an even bigger consequence is that doctors and hospitals now perform billions of dollars in unnecessary tests and examinations, for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from lawsuits. For example, I once went to my doctor because I had ringing in one ear after a loud rock concert. The doctor recommended an MRI scan, because there was a very small chance the ringing could be caused by a tumor. The odds of a tumor were one in a thousand, and recommending a very expensive test based on such odds was medically justified. However, if the doctor does not recommend an MRI to every patient, over time one patient might actually have a tumor with no symptoms except ringing in the ears, and if not given the MRI scan, he will surely sue the doctor when the tumor is discovered later. Similar medically unnecessary tests are administered a thousand times over every day throughout the country. Unnecessary tests, administered by doctors and hospitals to protect themselves from lawsuits, contribute greatly to the rising cost of American health care.
Reason #2: Over-regulation of insurance industries by the States
Each state has a different set of regulations regarding health insurance policies. The result is that no single health insurance policy is available in all 50 states. State regulations have severely limited the number of insurance companies and policies that are available in any given state. The result is a lack of consumer choice, lack of competition, and lack of market forces to keep prices down. Compare it to buying a car, in an alternate universe in which States have imposed over 1000 regulations on cars - required fuel mileage, safety features, performance, number of seats, number of cup-holders, etc. - and each state has different regulations, so that in any given state only 4 cars meet the requirements to be sold. The consumer would be left with the following choice: 4 cars from 4 differe
We MUST start accumulating vast reserves of liquid carbon dioxide NOW, so that in 50 years, when we're in the deadly throes of Global Cooling, we can release it to the atmosphere to warm the planet and save us all!
We have Russia making macho territorial claims all over the place and Canada (plus Denmark) are in the best position to legally defeat those claims, not the US.
Yes, just like Georgia was in the best position to legally defeat claims of South Ossetian independence. Russia is clearly a nation that will back down when confronted with convincing legal arguments.
You have a much better chance of competing against an evil corporation than you do against an evil government.
Plus, if you're upset about an "evil" corporation taking power and making tons of money, you can easily turn the tables and make that corporation work for YOU. Just buy some stock and voila the corporation that was once oppressing you is now making you richer and giving you MORE freedom (at least in the economic sense).
When a corporation makes a profit, it adds to the wealth of the nation (since corporations are owned by the public - anyone who chooses to invest). Government then takes a share of that wealth and a huge portion of it vanishes into thin air. And who are you calling evil?
There's a difference between pure capitalism and the free market. The role of government in the economy should be to ensure smooth and efficient operation of the free market. Primarily this should include busting monopolies to ensure ample competition in the marketplace. Instead our governments (federal and state) have over-regulated the economy to the point that it discourages competition, and instead of busting monopolies, they allow huge mergers and give entities like the RIAA free reign. The whole system is a mess and the consumer and the nation suffers from it.
An International Body - you mean like the U.N.? What do you think would happen if we put them in charge? They'd mail a letter to the asteroid explaining that they are very disappointed with its current trajectory, and in the end any direct action would be vetoed by China.
Definition of a lie: stating something that you know to be untrue.
Definition of an error: stating something that is later discovered to be untrue.
Definition of a moron: someone who can't tell the difference.
Wow, a horrible drought and a near-extinction event 70,000 years ago? I guess those ancient humans should have kept their CO2 emission levels under control!
... including myself. Arthur C. Clarke's books are largely responsible for where I am today. I read The Fountains of Paradise as a kid and now I'm 2 years from my Ph.D. focusing on nanotechnology and ultra-high strength lightweight materials. His mind will be missed but his vision and legacy will never be forgotten.
The Democrats can talk all they want on the House floor, but it's all hypocritical political posturing. The fact is, the Democrat-controlled Congress APPROVED the surveillance program. The Telecoms did nothing illegal in complying with the wiretap requests. They will continue to do so, and the program can now continue with the full authority of Congress, whereas before it was "simply" an executive order from the President.
The most ridiculous part is this issue of retroactive immunity. The Telecoms will NOT be prosecuted for any crime, since their actions have now been definitively legalized by Congress. However, they can still be sued in civil court by customers who feel their privacy has been violated (as the wiretaps probably violate the Telecoms' "terms of service" agreements). Trial lawyers are salivating over the prospect of huge class-action lawsuits with multi-million dollar settlements, and the accompanying lawyer fees they will collect. The consumers will only see a few dollars each from the settlements. The immunity was meant to prevent the Telecoms from being sued, not to prevent them from being prosecuted.
What is the real reason the Democrats approved the wiretap program, but denied Telecoms immunity from being sued over past actions that they have now made legal? Because trial lawyers are huge contributors to the Democrat party. The Democrats can talk all they want about the "rule of law", but their true objective is simply to benefit some of their wealthiest and biggest campaign contributors: the trial lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm quite glad we live in a republic, where the stupid elect those who have demonstrated they at least have machiavellian intelligence. It's fortunate for all of us that one breed of intelligence usually includes others as well. -_-
Does it really? This report begs to differ. Elected officials are actually dumber than the general public, at least when it comes to civic literacy: Elected Officials Score Lower than the General Public In Civic Literacy Test
As it is patently obvious to anyone who followed the Georgia/Russia conflagration to any degree, it was the Georgians who launched a surprise attack on South Ossetia...
This is patently obvious to anyone? Hardly. Before accusing another poster of ignorance, perhaps you yourself should read up on the subject. Here is a good place to start:
Michael Totten's report from Tbilisi, Georgia
You may find the truth is more complicated, and different, than you believe.
OK, here's a test: name any country that "doesn't like" Belgium, or New Zealand or Sweden or ... or (the list goes on).
Right, name the last time the world depended on Belgium, New Zealand, Sweden or... (the list goes on) to solve any problem, or come to anyone's aid in their time of need, or make any tough decision on a matter of any international consequence.
Like it or not, after WW2 the US became the only country in the West to have any major international responsibility. Every NATO country depends on the US almost exclusively for their national defense. Because of the global scope of US military involvement during/after WW2 and during the Cold War, to this day the US is the only country with the responsibility to keep rogue nations and aggressors in check.
When you're the only guy who has to make all the tough decisions, obviously you're going to make some enemies. The US has far more allies than enemies, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
The US has made mistakes of course, but has also brought a tremendous amount of peace and prosperity to a big portion of the world. I don't think the answer to today's threats is for the US to withdraw from its international responsibilities, stop making the tough decisions and become more like Sweden, just voting "present" and hoping that won't piss anyone off.
You're hopeless. This thread is old. I'm done.
So are you saying that Obama is opposed to private schools? Is that it? If not, what is your point? My point is simply that you gush over private schools, while ignoring the reality that public schools have to deal with.
What in the world are you talking about? Nobody is against private schools. I'm not gushing over private schools. I'm saying we should identify the things that make our college (both public and private) and private school systems work so well, and apply those concepts to the public school system, where possible.
We can't apply everything - for example we can't have public schools denying certain students admission (or can we? I don't know, think about it) - but principles like school choice, competition for students and their voucher money, competitive teacher salaries based on performance, the ability to fire teachers for performance-related issues, these things will most definitely work to improve the quality of public schools.
Stop trying to champion your anti-union cause and start trying to figure out how to make parents care more about their kids.
I'm talking about how to improve the quality of our public schools. You're talking about how to improve the quality of the students. I'm talking about changing something that the government actually has the power to do. You're talking about changing something only individuals can do for themselves.
You want the government to figure out how to get parents to care more about their kids? Good luck with that one. Let's focus on reality, on things the government can actually do - including the changes I proposed. And who knows, perhaps giving poor parents the same power that the rich have - the power to decide where their kids go to school - will encourage them to take a more active role in their kids' education.
To clarify, I'd argue it's pretty much impossible for the government to make *current* parents care more about their kids. You see, I don't think there's a causal relationship between parental income and parental involvement in education. The real relationship is between parental education level and parental involvement in their kids' education.
You want parents to care more about their kids? Start with today's kids. Improve our public schools by allowing school choice, among other reforms. Give today's kids a better education. Then when those kids grow up and become parents, they'll care more about their own kids.
Under a good voucher system, the money should follow the student. In this case, there would be no additional cost to parents who choose to send their children to a different public school, while if they choose a private school they would be responsible for the balance of the tuition. The solution is economically sound, and fair.
I don't see how you can argue that giving parents choice and options in their child's education is a bad thing. For everyone who argues that we need more parental involvement, of course we do, and giving parents the power of self-determination in their child's education would go a long way toward achieving this goal.
The voucher system would disproportionately help poor children. Children of the rich already go to the school of their parents' choice. The voucher system won't change that at all. Vouchers will simply give poor parents the same power that the rich have - to choose the education they feel is best for their children, without being over-burdened by the cost.
Fine, but Caribou Barbie's idiotic stance on abstinence only sex ed ought to disqualify her if nothing else does.
Perhaps you should do a little research before resorting to name-calling. You are 100% factually incorrect regarding Palin's stance on sex ed. I already addressed it in another post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1016459&cid=25612725
Which basically means that your argument falls apart.
Quite to the contrary. Read my previous post and use your capacity for logic and reason. We can't make ALL schools equal. Private schools will always have the advantage that they don't have to accept every student, while public schools do. However, we can do plenty to address all the other inadequacies of the public school system, as I address clearly in my other posts.
Great way to tackle the problem... we need the government to implement a policy that will make "parents care" more about their kid's education? How in the world does the federal government have any power to make "parents care"? How about suggesting something that the government can actually do.
Wait a minute, maybe you're on to something. What about if we give parents the power to decide which school their kids can go to? Maybe parents will "care more" if they actually have the power to DO SOMETHING about improving their kids' education? Maybe they'll actually do a little research about which schools are the best, and take a more active role in their kids' education?
I dispute "best college system in the world." Here, in England...
I didn't mean to imply that American colleges are better than English ones, or Canadian, etc. The point is that they ALL benefit from the same principle I want to apply to the American public school system: competition for your business and money. Colleges around the world benefit from the system of competition, even the public state colleges here in the U.S., and we should apply a similar system to our public schools.
That the public school system has to deal with everyone, while private schools can pick and choose, and simply throw out students who don't "fit in"? Did you take that into account in your comment?
For the sake of space I didn't, but I just replied to that issue a few posts up from yours. Short answer: you're right about this issue and we can't do anything about it, except demand better discipline at public schools.
All I know is that McCain's running mate is against international science research, and is a Young Earth Creationist. She also believes that "sex education" means telling kids not to have sex.
You're wrong about Palin's stance on sex ed. Your view is based on a commonly mis-interpreted response to a questionaire she filled out, saying that she would not support "explicit sex-ed programs". The questionaire was poorly written because it didn't describe its meaning of "explicit". Palin assumed it meant explicit discussions of sexual techniques, which she very reasonably would not support. Here is the exact question and response:
Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
She misunderstood the question, and her response was jumped on by the media. Here is her actual position, from an interview with People Magazine:
SP: I've always been a proponent of making sure kids understand -- even in schools -- they'd better take preventative measures so that they don't find themselves in these less than ideal circumstances. Perhaps Bristol could be a good example to other young women that life happens and preventative measures are, first and foremost, the option that should be considered --
SW: Do you mean abstinence or contraception?
SP: Well, both. Ideally abstinence. But we have not been ones to say that students, should not know what preventive measures are all about. I've been taken aback by some criticism that mainstream media has thrown my way saying, Oh, what a hypocrite she is and she's now learned her lesson because she's been against sex education in the schools. And I'm like, when? Where? When have I ever said that there should be no sex education taught in our homes or even in our schools?
I addressed her stance on evolution education in a previous post in this thread, so I won't repeat it here.
I agree. There's a difference between teaching - as in teaching that it is "truth", or at least the accepted "theory", and discussion - as in to provide information about it. Evolution alone should be taught. Everything else should not be banned from being discussed.
Another, perhaps more important point, is this: the President, and the VP, have no power whatsoever to change public school curriculum. So hypothetically, if we ever have a candidate who thinks creationism should be mandated in science class, it wouldn't matter in this sense, because he would have no power to make this happen. Even Congress has no power to influence public school curriculum. It's all decided locally.
I think if Americans had a better understanding of the powers and structure of government, there would be much less worry over such trivial matters.
You're correct, private schools don't have to accept every student, while public schools generally do. In this manner private schools will generally maintain better performance than public schools. And there is nothing we can do about this.
Going into more detail, I think public schools should have more authority to discipline their students. The discipline system in struggling public schools has been so watered down that there are little to no consequences to being disruptive in class. The legal system is partly to blame for this: public schools are afraid of getting sued for disciplining students.
A certain amount of fair and harsh discipline should be allowed - I'm not talking corporal punishment (though that certainly worked in the past...), but mandatory detentions and other punishments should be enforced, regardless of whether the parent approves. If the parents don't like the way a school is disciplining their children, they should be free to take their children to a different public school - using the voucher system.
Palin's stance on creationism? You mean that evolution should be taught exclusively in science class, as it is in Alaska? And that there's nothing wrong with discussing alternative views, in an appropriate context, without putting them in the curriculum? What's wrong with that?
I'm a scientist. I think that intelligent design and creationism are hogwash. But because of America's foundation in religion, they are concepts that anyone will come across outside of school. I think they should be discussed, at the teacher's discretion, especially if a student brings up the question, but should not be mandated in the curriculum.
Palin said in one interview "teach both... don't be afraid of information". The next day she went on to clarify her position by saying that they shouldn't be part of the curriculum, but it's ok to discuss them if a student brings it up. Actually here's the exact quote: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
Why can't McCain properly defend his education policy? It is the most important issue facing our nation, and it is where McCain is leaps and bounds ahead of Obama!
We have the best private education system in the world. We have the best college education system in the world, both public and private. We have one of the worst public school systems in the developed world. Why? What's the difference between our tremendously successful college system and private system, and our horrendous public school system? Guess what, it's NOT MONEY. Per-student spending in public schools is almost DOUBLE what it is in private schools! Surprised? You certainly didn't hear that in tonight's debate. Only the absolute top most elite private schools cost more per student than we spend on our public schools, and the difference is not much, just 10-20% more. And students at those elite schools get WAY more in return for that extra 10-20%. Oh, and public school teachers earn more than private school teachers, so that's not it either.
So what's the difference between how our public, government-run schools operate, and how our colleges and private schools operate? Here are the differences:
1. No teachers unions in private schools and colleges.
2. School choice: private schools and colleges must compete for your dollars. Public schools don't; the government decides which school you must attend, based on what neighborhood you live in.
Let's go into #1.
The teachers union is the most dangerous organization on the planet. They are more of a threat to our nation than Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined. They are ruining the education of our children and destroying our only hope of maintaining our prosperity and peace.
The teachers union has made it impossible to fire teachers for poor performance. To be fired, a teacher basically has to break the law or molest a student. They can't be fired for simply being a terrible teacher. It's gotten so bad that at public schools across the country, bad teachers are paid full-time salaries to simply sit in the teachers' lounge all day and not teach! Schools are forced to do this because they don't want these bad teachers anywhere near their students, but they haven't done anything that the union says they can be fired for.
In private schools and colleges, teacher pay is based on performance. In public schools, because of teachers union demands, pay is based on seniority (i.e. how long they've been working there). You can't pay good teachers more and bad teachers less, and therefore you can't attract and reward the best teaching talent. Public teachers as a whole lose the motivation that drives the private sector to work harder and better: more money.
Finally, the teachers union is 100% opposed to school choice. Why? Because it would force all public teachers to work harder and compete for their job, just like everyone does in every job in the private sector.
And this leads directly into Point #2.
It is school choice, in the form of vouchers, that will save our public education system. The way our system works now, schools tell the government how many students they have each year, and the government funds them with X amount of dollars per student. The way school choice will work is this: instead of the government giving those dollars to the school, that money will be given directly to the parents in the form of a voucher. The parents can then take that voucher and use it to send their kids to any school they want, public or private.
What affect will this have? Competition. The same thing that makes our private schools and colleges perform so well. They'll have to wise up, stop wasting money, become more efficient, and start teaching better, or else they'll start losing students. Parents will choose to send their kids to better-performing schools.
Cue the teachers union yelling "But you'll be taking money away from already struggling schools!". Of course, that's the point, and that's a good thing - because the struggling schoo
The problem with health care in America is that it is too expensive. The actual cost of health care -- doctors visits, hospital stays, operations, emergency room visits -- is too expensive. This in turn raises the cost of health insurance to the point that many people cannot afford it. The high cost of American health care cannot be solved simply by changing which pocket pays for it. Changing the payer from the individual (through out-of-pocket or insurance premiums) to the "government" -- i.e. taxpayers -- will do nothing to solve the fundamental problem: that health care services are too expensive. To solve the problem, we must understand WHY our health care costs so much.
Reason #1: The Legal System: Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
1a: Doctors' and Hospitals' skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums
Medical malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last 20 years. Doctors and hospitals must compensate for this by charging more for their services. The cost of malpractice insurance has increased because overly-aggressive law firms (and their clients) regularly sue doctors and hospitals for any perceived mistake or even just bad luck, and the defendants are forced to settle for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. There are of course legitimate cases of medical malpractice: if a surgeon removes the wrong kidney, for example. However, the vast majority of malpractice lawsuits are baseless, stemming from common incidents such as misdiagnoses, ineffective treatments, or missed diseases during screenings. These incidents are not criminal or negligent in nature, but are simply results of the unfortunate nature of the medical profession: that it is as much an art as a science. Our legal system must be reformed to protect doctors and hospitals from the deluge of unjust malpractice lawsuits that is destroying health care in America.
1b: Unnecessary and medically-unjustified tests performed by doctors and hospitals to protect themselves from lawsuits
The threat of malpractice lawsuits does far more harm than simply increasing the cost of health care services. In fact, an even bigger consequence is that doctors and hospitals now perform billions of dollars in unnecessary tests and examinations, for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from lawsuits. For example, I once went to my doctor because I had ringing in one ear after a loud rock concert. The doctor recommended an MRI scan, because there was a very small chance the ringing could be caused by a tumor. The odds of a tumor were one in a thousand, and recommending a very expensive test based on such odds was medically justified. However, if the doctor does not recommend an MRI to every patient, over time one patient might actually have a tumor with no symptoms except ringing in the ears, and if not given the MRI scan, he will surely sue the doctor when the tumor is discovered later. Similar medically unnecessary tests are administered a thousand times over every day throughout the country. Unnecessary tests, administered by doctors and hospitals to protect themselves from lawsuits, contribute greatly to the rising cost of American health care.
Reason #2: Over-regulation of insurance industries by the States
Each state has a different set of regulations regarding health insurance policies. The result is that no single health insurance policy is available in all 50 states. State regulations have severely limited the number of insurance companies and policies that are available in any given state. The result is a lack of consumer choice, lack of competition, and lack of market forces to keep prices down. Compare it to buying a car, in an alternate universe in which States have imposed over 1000 regulations on cars - required fuel mileage, safety features, performance, number of seats, number of cup-holders, etc. - and each state has different regulations, so that in any given state only 4 cars meet the requirements to be sold. The consumer would be left with the following choice: 4 cars from 4 differe
We MUST start accumulating vast reserves of liquid carbon dioxide NOW, so that in 50 years, when we're in the deadly throes of Global Cooling, we can release it to the atmosphere to warm the planet and save us all!
We have Russia making macho territorial claims all over the place and Canada (plus Denmark) are in the best position to legally defeat those claims, not the US.
Yes, just like Georgia was in the best position to legally defeat claims of South Ossetian independence. Russia is clearly a nation that will back down when confronted with convincing legal arguments.
You have a much better chance of competing against an evil corporation than you do against an evil government.
Plus, if you're upset about an "evil" corporation taking power and making tons of money, you can easily turn the tables and make that corporation work for YOU. Just buy some stock and voila the corporation that was once oppressing you is now making you richer and giving you MORE freedom (at least in the economic sense).
When a corporation makes a profit, it adds to the wealth of the nation (since corporations are owned by the public - anyone who chooses to invest). Government then takes a share of that wealth and a huge portion of it vanishes into thin air. And who are you calling evil?
There's a difference between pure capitalism and the free market. The role of government in the economy should be to ensure smooth and efficient operation of the free market. Primarily this should include busting monopolies to ensure ample competition in the marketplace. Instead our governments (federal and state) have over-regulated the economy to the point that it discourages competition, and instead of busting monopolies, they allow huge mergers and give entities like the RIAA free reign. The whole system is a mess and the consumer and the nation suffers from it.
An International Body - you mean like the U.N.? What do you think would happen if we put them in charge? They'd mail a letter to the asteroid explaining that they are very disappointed with its current trajectory, and in the end any direct action would be vetoed by China.
Definition of a lie: stating something that you know to be untrue. Definition of an error: stating something that is later discovered to be untrue. Definition of a moron: someone who can't tell the difference.
Wow, a horrible drought and a near-extinction event 70,000 years ago? I guess those ancient humans should have kept their CO2 emission levels under control!
... including myself. Arthur C. Clarke's books are largely responsible for where I am today. I read The Fountains of Paradise as a kid and now I'm 2 years from my Ph.D. focusing on nanotechnology and ultra-high strength lightweight materials. His mind will be missed but his vision and legacy will never be forgotten.
The Democrats can talk all they want on the House floor, but it's all hypocritical political posturing. The fact is, the Democrat-controlled Congress APPROVED the surveillance program. The Telecoms did nothing illegal in complying with the wiretap requests. They will continue to do so, and the program can now continue with the full authority of Congress, whereas before it was "simply" an executive order from the President.
The most ridiculous part is this issue of retroactive immunity. The Telecoms will NOT be prosecuted for any crime, since their actions have now been definitively legalized by Congress. However, they can still be sued in civil court by customers who feel their privacy has been violated (as the wiretaps probably violate the Telecoms' "terms of service" agreements). Trial lawyers are salivating over the prospect of huge class-action lawsuits with multi-million dollar settlements, and the accompanying lawyer fees they will collect. The consumers will only see a few dollars each from the settlements. The immunity was meant to prevent the Telecoms from being sued, not to prevent them from being prosecuted.
What is the real reason the Democrats approved the wiretap program, but denied Telecoms immunity from being sued over past actions that they have now made legal? Because trial lawyers are huge contributors to the Democrat party. The Democrats can talk all they want about the "rule of law", but their true objective is simply to benefit some of their wealthiest and biggest campaign contributors: the trial lawyers.