How so? Health insurance is a business in the US, and as such, they can hold you to any contract terms they like (well, subject to standard limits in contract law). Remember, you're applying for their service... if you don't like it, shop around. If everyone's doing it, tough shit, guess you'll have to survive without insurance, and god help you if you develop a serious illness...
You're saying health care shouldn't be about social justice? Seriously?? Wow... you really are a cold-hearted bastard, aren't you? I assume you feel the same way about, say, the third world food crisis?
ROFL, so you'd rather go back to the days of snake oil salesman?? God... frankly, I'm shocked you got modded up. Reduce surgeon qualifications? Seriously???
Yeah, and just like it's unfair for your insurance to go up because some jackass rear-ended you, it's incredibly unjust for one to suddenly be unable to afford insurance because they become afflicted with an unavoidable condition (a friend of ours has PKD, a severe disease that's entirely genetic in origin... it's not their fault they have the condition, but now healthcare is all but unaffordable for them).
(C) Keep your money, and spend it on health care when and where you choose.
(D) Build a quality, government-run universal health care system, like those found in virtually the entire western world, and watch quality of life rise while health care costs plummet.
AFAIK In Canada selling this information is illegal
That it is... well, unless you sign a disclosure, which the article claims is required if you want to get insurance in the first place. So you're basically boned in the US if you want health care coverage *and* your personal privacy.
So, what do they have to lose? They look even worse for doing nothing.
They do? Are you sure? The Democrats are counting on various Republican seats flipping so they can solidify their majority. The last thing they need is to damage those chances now by risking being painted as a bunch of unpatriotic cowards (or worse, tax-and-spend liberals, since they should also be repealing Bush's insane tax cuts).
Again, I'm not saying they're blameless (your points about silly hearings on Baseball are right on). The Congress has been sadly ineffectual. But when you have a slim majority (make no mistake, the Dems are *not* in the position to push whatever they want through both houses) and a president willing to veto any bill that doesn't align with his own political views (and lest you forget, because he is a "lame duck", I'm sure he's perfectly happy blowing what's left of his political capital in order to hold the line on his policies), I think it's understandable that they haven't instituted the level of change that people would like.
they should counter with some factual arguments about tax-and-spend policies in the White House
I'm sorry, what? First off, I think you mean "cut-tax-and-spend" policies. It's not the Democrats (who are traditionally painted with that brush) that have fucked up the US budget, it's the Republicans (who're supposedly fiscally responsible).
Secondly, *factual* arguments? We're talking about the US public, here. Let me illustrate how this would go:
Congress: Here's the budget. As you can see, we're cutting back on spending in key areas in order to reign in expenditures. In particular, in order to control growth of the ballooning national debt, we've been forced to reduce funding for various military operations, including Iraq.
President: The democrats don't support the troops! They don't support the troops, everyone! See? No troop supporting!!
Congress: Well, given the outlandish spending and unreasonable tax cuts of the last 7 years, we've been forced to make some uncomfortable compromises so that we can begin balancing the budget, something that's critical during a weakening economic outlook.
Pressident: SUPPORT THE TROOPS! SUPPORT THE TROOPS! TERRORISTS! 9/11! TROOOOOPS!
Repeat, ad nauseum. In short: the US public hasn't demonstrated the wherewithal to comprehend a nuanced argument regarding US expenditures. You make not like it, but that's the truth. As such, the dems are plain and simply caught between a rock and a hard place. Cut funding, they look bad. Continue spending, they look bad.
The only real solution is to pull the hell out of Iraq, at which point they can cut military expenditures without being painted as unpatriotic. But that can't happen until this President has left office (for what I hope are obvious reasons). As such, I'm happy to wait until year two of the next administration before declaring them an abject failure.
that ALL big government is wasteful, inefficient, deceitful and corrupt.
In the US. Oddly, the rest of the world seems to manage just fine. Just compare various health statistics versus total expenditures... the US is dismally low, in terms of health performance, yet spends the most per capita, while countries around the world who spend less on a universal, government run system consistently outperform the US across a broad range of categories. I know, this flies in the face of your libertarian fantasy world, but, I'm afraid to say, reality and libertarianism are rarely on concert with one another...
OK, so how do you explain the fact that the Democrats, who run both houses of congress and who are completely in control of budgeting and spending and the raising of money, have no interest in reigning in spending?
Well, in their defense, if the house passes a spending bill the Pres doesn't like, he just vetoes it and then cries out that the dems don't want to support the troops.
It's a shitty situation, and the dems are partly responsible, but they have an extremely slim majority (and can lost in the Senate to a filibuster), and a remarkably belligerent president to deal with, so it's hardly fair to blame it all on them.
if they have the training then they will know how to use the discipline tools they have...
Bah, you, yourself, illustrate why this won't solve the problem. The real problem isn't lack of parental tools. The real problem are those parents that don't perceive there being a problem. Specifically, you mention this:
"Part of the problem with these kids is that they respect no one, they care about no ones opinion, and they are completely selfish... Usually you also find that their parents are the same way."
Sorry, but if that's a problem, parental training ain't gonna do squat. That's not to say training is a bad idea, but it isn't going to solve the problem you claim to have identified.
Right now organizations enforce they very same 'gray area' as you call it on parents.
Uhh, no, they don't. Right now, there is *no* gray area. If a kid's being hit repeatedly, it's something to report, period. There is no question of whether or not it's justifiable punishment. Physical abuse is plain and simply illegal. Remove that line, and suddenly you have to ask the question, is what I'm seeing punishment or abuse?
It's also not a 'minority', it's a growing epidemic
Citation, please. Anecdote != evidence.
they may at least fear our reprisal and that's something we can work with.
Until they leave the school, at which point they just revert to their previous behaviours.
Look, if your goal is to control those kids in order to protect the other students, just kick the damn kids out of school. If your goal is to actually teach them proper behaviour, fear isn't the way to do it, as they'll simply act out when there's no fear of reprisal. This is, fundamentally, the problem of fear as a driver for behaviour: the minute there is no fear, all bets are off.
Nothing seems to work except either A) kicking them out of school (not possible in 90% of cases)
Not possible, why? Once you have the answer to that question, you'll have the real solution to your problem. Rather than trying to legalize physical abuse, maybe you should be trying to eliminate the barriers preventing you from removing those few truly problematic kids from the student population. This would address every single issue you cite (fighting, student-teacher abuse, turnover due to stress, class disruption issues, etc), while leaving corporal punishment, and all it's attendant problems, off the table.
Funny, because the Supreme Court has held that "threats of violence are outside the First Amendment" (citation). Now, I should clarify, that's not to say you have a right to not feel threatened. You don't. But you also don't have carte blanche to threaten others.
Offensive speech is still free, so long as it is a matter of opinion and not fact.
And so long as they don't say "I'm going to stab John and the fuck his tender asshole". If these students really did threaten to assault or rape those women, they can be charged for threatening violence, which AFAIK, is still illegal (citation).
Is it because you believe in that middle class white folks have all the breaks? That is what I read.
Well that's dumb. Everyone knows it's rich white folks that have all the breaks. Middle class white folks do pretty well, too, though. Don't believe it? Take a look at the odds of getting the death penalty in Texas, for the same crime, if you're black versus white.
had actual corporal punishment as a child. It was not physical abuse.
Great, in your case, you had parents who punished you appropriately. The problem is, you completely ignored the rest of my post and went off on a rant about how bad today's kids and parents are. It's a lovely diatribe, but you really should go back and see if you can understand the point I was trying to make.
what the consequences are when it's used wrong.
See, missed entirely. Define "wrong". Okay, now try and prove it in court.
The current laws make it easy for the state to go into a home and rescue a child that's endangered by parents who believe that beating a child senseless is a valid form of punishment (and there have *always* been parents like that... it's not some knew phenomenon that's a consequence of modern culture. For an example, go read "To Kill a Mockingbird"). The minute you change the laws to allow corporal punishment, you create an unenforceable gray area that will endanger millions of children, all to try and address the minority of kids who (you claim) will not respond to any other form of discipline.
And, of course, this is all based on the premise that corporal punishment is the only solution to certain disciplinary problems. The trouble is, you haven't actually proved that. All you've done is asserted it as fact, based on your own anecdotal evidence.
Incidentally, to provide an equally useless counter-anecdote, my (single) mother never used corporal punishment as a form of discipline. My father did, but it had no effect. Why? Because I respected my mother, and not my father. After all, which is easier to brush off, a spanking, or the deep-seated knowledge that you've disappointed someone that you deeply respect?
The "cool, hip" companies are the ones that encourage their employees to engage in nerf gun fights, have parties every Friday, and generally play around on company time.
Oh, I see! If you have a relaxed atmosphere, that must necessarily mean that there are no expectations and no demands. Interesting premise. Grossly ignorant and wrong... but interesting.
Corporal Punishment is not randomly swatting your kids around.
And you yourself point out that most parents don't realize this. So your proposal is we legalize something that a) most people won't use correctly, and b) in a large number of cases would result in what is effectively legalized physical abuse? Right... real brilliant.
Meanwhile, as you pine for the good ol' days, I'm reminded of stories like Oliver Twist... personally, I think I'll take the odd unruly child.
Or to put it another way: the good ol' days really weren't that good. But, as usual, today you ignore the good and only see the bad, and looking back, you ignore the bad and only see the good. It's human nature, but the least you can do is recognize it.
Have you ever actually *been* to Northern Alberta? On the days when it's nice enough to bike, the temperature easily rides in the 70-80F (20-30C) range (at least, in Edmonton it does... whether or not that's "northern Alberta" is, I suppose, a matter of perspective). It ain't humid, but you'll sure as hell break a sweat.
'course, I used to ride in the dead of winter (-20C range), and I'd still break a sweat under my gear, so I'm not sure how much temperature/humidity really makes a difference.
Is it fair to say we agree that morons shouldn't be producing software?
Since when were buffer overflows limited to stupid programmers? Last I checked, every programmer was human, and thus every programmer makes mistakes (my glorious, unbelievably awesome self included). And in the world of unsafe languages, just one absent-minded error can translate into a severe security issue. Yes, you can institute conventions and procedures, and make design decisions which minimize the chances of such things happening. But in the end, there's always the human element.
The premise behind a 'safe' language is to completely remove certain classes of errors, because the designers understand that *no* programmer is perfect. Of course, in some cases, that can come with tradeoffs. But make no mistake, with those tradeoffs comes additional safety.
Slashdot Mirror
How so? Health insurance is a business in the US, and as such, they can hold you to any contract terms they like (well, subject to standard limits in contract law). Remember, you're applying for their service... if you don't like it, shop around. If everyone's doing it, tough shit, guess you'll have to survive without insurance, and god help you if you develop a serious illness...
You're saying health care shouldn't be about social justice? Seriously?? Wow... you really are a cold-hearted bastard, aren't you? I assume you feel the same way about, say, the third world food crisis?
ROFL, so you'd rather go back to the days of snake oil salesman?? God... frankly, I'm shocked you got modded up. Reduce surgeon qualifications? Seriously???
Yeah, and just like it's unfair for your insurance to go up because some jackass rear-ended you, it's incredibly unjust for one to suddenly be unable to afford insurance because they become afflicted with an unavoidable condition (a friend of ours has PKD, a severe disease that's entirely genetic in origin... it's not their fault they have the condition, but now healthcare is all but unaffordable for them).
(C) Keep your money, and spend it on health care when and where you choose.
(D) Build a quality, government-run universal health care system, like those found in virtually the entire western world, and watch quality of life rise while health care costs plummet.
But I can see why you wouldn't want that...
AFAIK In Canada selling this information is illegal
That it is... well, unless you sign a disclosure, which the article claims is required if you want to get insurance in the first place. So you're basically boned in the US if you want health care coverage *and* your personal privacy.
So, what do they have to lose? They look even worse for doing nothing.
They do? Are you sure? The Democrats are counting on various Republican seats flipping so they can solidify their majority. The last thing they need is to damage those chances now by risking being painted as a bunch of unpatriotic cowards (or worse, tax-and-spend liberals, since they should also be repealing Bush's insane tax cuts).
Again, I'm not saying they're blameless (your points about silly hearings on Baseball are right on). The Congress has been sadly ineffectual. But when you have a slim majority (make no mistake, the Dems are *not* in the position to push whatever they want through both houses) and a president willing to veto any bill that doesn't align with his own political views (and lest you forget, because he is a "lame duck", I'm sure he's perfectly happy blowing what's left of his political capital in order to hold the line on his policies), I think it's understandable that they haven't instituted the level of change that people would like.
they should counter with some factual arguments about tax-and-spend policies in the White House
I'm sorry, what? First off, I think you mean "cut-tax-and-spend" policies. It's not the Democrats (who are traditionally painted with that brush) that have fucked up the US budget, it's the Republicans (who're supposedly fiscally responsible).
Secondly, *factual* arguments? We're talking about the US public, here. Let me illustrate how this would go:
Congress: Here's the budget. As you can see, we're cutting back on spending in key areas in order to reign in expenditures. In particular, in order to control growth of the ballooning national debt, we've been forced to reduce funding for various military operations, including Iraq.
President: The democrats don't support the troops! They don't support the troops, everyone! See? No troop supporting!!
Congress: Well, given the outlandish spending and unreasonable tax cuts of the last 7 years, we've been forced to make some uncomfortable compromises so that we can begin balancing the budget, something that's critical during a weakening economic outlook.
Pressident: SUPPORT THE TROOPS! SUPPORT THE TROOPS! TERRORISTS! 9/11! TROOOOOPS!
Repeat, ad nauseum. In short: the US public hasn't demonstrated the wherewithal to comprehend a nuanced argument regarding US expenditures. You make not like it, but that's the truth. As such, the dems are plain and simply caught between a rock and a hard place. Cut funding, they look bad. Continue spending, they look bad.
The only real solution is to pull the hell out of Iraq, at which point they can cut military expenditures without being painted as unpatriotic. But that can't happen until this President has left office (for what I hope are obvious reasons). As such, I'm happy to wait until year two of the next administration before declaring them an abject failure.
that ALL big government is wasteful, inefficient, deceitful and corrupt.
In the US. Oddly, the rest of the world seems to manage just fine. Just compare various health statistics versus total expenditures... the US is dismally low, in terms of health performance, yet spends the most per capita, while countries around the world who spend less on a universal, government run system consistently outperform the US across a broad range of categories. I know, this flies in the face of your libertarian fantasy world, but, I'm afraid to say, reality and libertarianism are rarely on concert with one another...
OK, so how do you explain the fact that the Democrats, who run both houses of congress and who are completely in control of budgeting and spending and the raising of money, have no interest in reigning in spending?
Well, in their defense, if the house passes a spending bill the Pres doesn't like, he just vetoes it and then cries out that the dems don't want to support the troops.
It's a shitty situation, and the dems are partly responsible, but they have an extremely slim majority (and can lost in the Senate to a filibuster), and a remarkably belligerent president to deal with, so it's hardly fair to blame it all on them.
if they have the training then they will know how to use the discipline tools they have...
Bah, you, yourself, illustrate why this won't solve the problem. The real problem isn't lack of parental tools. The real problem are those parents that don't perceive there being a problem. Specifically, you mention this:
"Part of the problem with these kids is that they respect no one, they care about no ones opinion, and they are completely selfish... Usually you also find that their parents are the same way."
Sorry, but if that's a problem, parental training ain't gonna do squat. That's not to say training is a bad idea, but it isn't going to solve the problem you claim to have identified.
Right now organizations enforce they very same 'gray area' as you call it on parents.
Uhh, no, they don't. Right now, there is *no* gray area. If a kid's being hit repeatedly, it's something to report, period. There is no question of whether or not it's justifiable punishment. Physical abuse is plain and simply illegal. Remove that line, and suddenly you have to ask the question, is what I'm seeing punishment or abuse?
It's also not a 'minority', it's a growing epidemic
Citation, please. Anecdote != evidence.
they may at least fear our reprisal and that's something we can work with.
Until they leave the school, at which point they just revert to their previous behaviours.
Look, if your goal is to control those kids in order to protect the other students, just kick the damn kids out of school. If your goal is to actually teach them proper behaviour, fear isn't the way to do it, as they'll simply act out when there's no fear of reprisal. This is, fundamentally, the problem of fear as a driver for behaviour: the minute there is no fear, all bets are off.
Nothing seems to work except either A) kicking them out of school (not possible in 90% of cases)
Not possible, why? Once you have the answer to that question, you'll have the real solution to your problem. Rather than trying to legalize physical abuse, maybe you should be trying to eliminate the barriers preventing you from removing those few truly problematic kids from the student population. This would address every single issue you cite (fighting, student-teacher abuse, turnover due to stress, class disruption issues, etc), while leaving corporal punishment, and all it's attendant problems, off the table.
Yeah, I think it's clear that the (effective) statement "I'm going to rape you" goes beyond just "feeling" threatened...
No one has the right to not feel threatened.
Funny, because the Supreme Court has held that "threats of violence are outside the First Amendment" (citation). Now, I should clarify, that's not to say you have a right to not feel threatened. You don't. But you also don't have carte blanche to threaten others.
Offensive speech is still free, so long as it is a matter of opinion and not fact.
And so long as they don't say "I'm going to stab John and the fuck his tender asshole". If these students really did threaten to assault or rape those women, they can be charged for threatening violence, which AFAIK, is still illegal (citation).
Actually, that's not fair... it ain't just Texas: citation.
Is it because you believe in that middle class white folks have all the breaks? That is what I read.
Well that's dumb. Everyone knows it's rich white folks that have all the breaks. Middle class white folks do pretty well, too, though. Don't believe it? Take a look at the odds of getting the death penalty in Texas, for the same crime, if you're black versus white.
had actual corporal punishment as a child. It was not physical abuse.
Great, in your case, you had parents who punished you appropriately. The problem is, you completely ignored the rest of my post and went off on a rant about how bad today's kids and parents are. It's a lovely diatribe, but you really should go back and see if you can understand the point I was trying to make.
what the consequences are when it's used wrong.
See, missed entirely. Define "wrong". Okay, now try and prove it in court.
The current laws make it easy for the state to go into a home and rescue a child that's endangered by parents who believe that beating a child senseless is a valid form of punishment (and there have *always* been parents like that... it's not some knew phenomenon that's a consequence of modern culture. For an example, go read "To Kill a Mockingbird"). The minute you change the laws to allow corporal punishment, you create an unenforceable gray area that will endanger millions of children, all to try and address the minority of kids who (you claim) will not respond to any other form of discipline.
And, of course, this is all based on the premise that corporal punishment is the only solution to certain disciplinary problems. The trouble is, you haven't actually proved that. All you've done is asserted it as fact, based on your own anecdotal evidence.
Incidentally, to provide an equally useless counter-anecdote, my (single) mother never used corporal punishment as a form of discipline. My father did, but it had no effect. Why? Because I respected my mother, and not my father. After all, which is easier to brush off, a spanking, or the deep-seated knowledge that you've disappointed someone that you deeply respect?
Because taking a picture of your house is equivalent to installing a webcam inside it? Riiiight...
The "cool, hip" companies are the ones that encourage their employees to engage in nerf gun fights, have parties every Friday, and generally play around on company time.
Oh, I see! If you have a relaxed atmosphere, that must necessarily mean that there are no expectations and no demands. Interesting premise. Grossly ignorant and wrong... but interesting.
Corporal Punishment is not randomly swatting your kids around.
And you yourself point out that most parents don't realize this. So your proposal is we legalize something that a) most people won't use correctly, and b) in a large number of cases would result in what is effectively legalized physical abuse? Right... real brilliant.
Meanwhile, as you pine for the good ol' days, I'm reminded of stories like Oliver Twist... personally, I think I'll take the odd unruly child.
Or to put it another way: the good ol' days really weren't that good. But, as usual, today you ignore the good and only see the bad, and looking back, you ignore the bad and only see the good. It's human nature, but the least you can do is recognize it.
Not if you believe that breaking a sweat isn't a problem while cycling there. ;)
Ha ha, touche. Though, in my defense, that's a cliche base on a stereotype, used to convey an idea, and not meant to be a stereotype in and of itself.
Is it fair to say we agree that morons shouldn't be producing software?
I think you're right, actually. :)
Have you ever actually *been* to Northern Alberta? On the days when it's nice enough to bike, the temperature easily rides in the 70-80F (20-30C) range (at least, in Edmonton it does... whether or not that's "northern Alberta" is, I suppose, a matter of perspective). It ain't humid, but you'll sure as hell break a sweat.
'course, I used to ride in the dead of winter (-20C range), and I'd still break a sweat under my gear, so I'm not sure how much temperature/humidity really makes a difference.
Is it fair to say we agree that morons shouldn't be producing software?
Since when were buffer overflows limited to stupid programmers? Last I checked, every programmer was human, and thus every programmer makes mistakes (my glorious, unbelievably awesome self included). And in the world of unsafe languages, just one absent-minded error can translate into a severe security issue. Yes, you can institute conventions and procedures, and make design decisions which minimize the chances of such things happening. But in the end, there's always the human element.
The premise behind a 'safe' language is to completely remove certain classes of errors, because the designers understand that *no* programmer is perfect. Of course, in some cases, that can come with tradeoffs. But make no mistake, with those tradeoffs comes additional safety.