In the history of the world, there has never been a "good" government. When things were at their absolute best, the government was mediocre and it didn't last.
The usual quote for this situation is Thomas Paine:
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.
I am glad this hedge fund guy is moving to a purely theoretical field. If he can't learn from history, at least he can't hurt the economy with silly financial deals.
And not taking the feelings of others into consideration is?
The feelings of others are their own problem. I don't control your feelings. You do. If I take your feelings "into consideration", then I let you choose how I live my life and what decisions I make. So no. No one should let the feelings of someone else dictate their choices.
Having good manners is a virtue. Anything beyond that is a capitulation to others' control.
Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings. Then your silly "everybody does it" argument might at least be factual. (It's still a ridiculous argument, even if everybody did do it -- but everybody doesn't.)
They don't need a Constitutional Amendment. There already is one -- the 2nd one. They'll just come up with a reason it doesn't apply.
The President, Congress, and the Supreme Court decide what they want. The Constitution is now used mostly as a rhetorical device to support an argument or to be worked around or ignored otherwise.
Often they actually are synonymous. Other times, when they aren't, there might be a reason why not. And sometimes you just get caught taking both sides of an argument and there's no point in carrying on the conversation any longer. (John Kerry could have used that insight.)
Rather people willingly chose an under-qualified president...
Even now, Barack Obama is "scary" to these people because they think his intelligence means he's hiding something, or that the fact that he speaks eloquently and presents intelligent-sounding solutions means that he's a know-it-all.
Which is it? Do qualifications matter or do you support Barack Obama even though he has only served 144 days in the Senate?
People should be free. Governments use force (or the threat of force) to rule people. Larger governments do more of it. Smaller governments do less. Representative governments are the same as any other governments in this regard, except a majority rules in a representative government. But people are still ruled, and they are ruled more by a large government than by a small one.
This is provably true based on taxes alone. Taxes are taken from people against their will. They are not a willing donation. Large governments tax more than small ones. Americans work an average of about 5 months a year to pay their taxes. During that time, there's no way they could reasonably be called free.
On the other hand, the Republicans want to control what women do with their sexual organs,
It really bugs me when women use their sexual organs to build an accurate scale model of a 17th century cathedral. Is that what you mean by this? Even though it bugs me, I think they should be free to do it.
want to prevent parents from getting their daughters vaccinated against potentially life-threatening diseases (cancer causing HPV strains),
Vaccination police on standby. Alert! Alert!... What the hell are you talking about?
and want to create laws dictating whom you may or may not marry in order to enforce their religious beliefs.
Bob and his baby sister can't get married now? I mean, Bob's already married to 3 other women and engaged to his mother, but we should respect his choices, right?
By the way, some of by far the freest countries in the world have nationalize healthcare, and it works EXCELLENTLY.
In the USA, we have the best health care. Some people merely complain it's expensive.
What if someone actually could make it compelling to students though? Not quite entertaining, but enjoyable. What if they learned better because of the style and the energy and the personality of the teacher? What if he was one of the best teachers and had broadcast talent to connect to an audience on camera?
So lets have a non-government system where free people make their own choices. Then you won't have to spend so much energy worrying that someone might have a religious perspective. They can be responsible for their children and you can be responsible for yours. Everyone chooses for themselves and their family only.
Political understanding does not come from a dictionary. You may find it, but you'll have to put the dictionary down and listen to what people actually say and watch what their positions are. Many "conservatives" want change in the schools (among other things).
So you should be attacking them as hard or harder, and when you don't, that shows you aren't intellectually consistent, and thus not worth listening to.
How about if we just get the government out of the system and let people make their own choices as free people? It seems better than attacking people.
And saying that "the union prevents change" isn't an attack. It's just a fact. The union prevents change except when change benefits the union and union members. That's what unions exist to do. And students are not members of the teachers' union.
An expert saying that we should do something is not equivalent to them trying to run our lives.
But people trying to run your life will claim expertise as qualification for the job.
But look at Bush's policies, and what the republican party has been doing, and then tell me that they don't dream of being my king.
Last thing I heard, deregulation was what the Republicans did wrong. Before that, it was tax cuts. They prevented the government takeover of health care. They wanted to move Social Security to a private-sector system. They got rid of the 55 MPH speed limit. They opposed a government enforced minimum wage increase many times. What kind of kings are these who want us to keep more of our own money and make more of our own choices?
Bush has 3 months left. Then what? Which choice do you think will lead to more power in the hands of government and less in the hands of individuals?
I do not support him, but at least with McCain we might get some bills vetoed. Then we can try again in 2012. Maybe the country can find a pro-freedom candidate by then.
Its pretty clear to me, at least, that the Republican party has been saying that intelligence is bad because intelligent people are elitist, and pointing that out isn't condescending.
Elitism is bad. People who consider themselves members of the ruling class are elitists (among other things). A ruling class is bad because people should not be "ruled", rather they should be free. (The original post connected intelligence and elitism. I did not. There is a connection: elitists consider themselves intelligent. Note this does not imply that intelligent people are elitists, nor that elitists are necessarily correct in their self-assessment.)
Nor is it condescending to say that we should probably give some weight to people who are experts in their field of expertise.
If "weight" is a euphemism for ruling, then no. Experts should not be given "weight". Appeals to expertise are a common tactic to justify ruling people. I thank experts for their knowledge and guidance. I may be able to use it to make my own choices in my own life. Experts are not needed to make my choices for me.
When it comes to the president, being intelligent should be a very desirable trait.
Desirable, yes. Many things are desirable. But I would rather have a stupid President who wanted people to be free than a genius who decided he deserved to be my king.
It's not malicious. It's what unions are. Unions prevent change that might, in any way, be a negative to their members or the hierarchy or the size of the union. They also promote change to benefit the members of the union.
They do not exist to help children learn. That is simply not the reason the union exists.
Not at all, but if you want to keep great teachers who ensure productivity and achievement, you have to keep them comfortable, otherwise they leave for some other job. This is a basic rule of business.
This assumes the result of "productivity and achievement". That result is not in evidence in much of the educational system. That's why change is in order. If the system were already great then you might have a point. But it is not.
No change can happen though. It is disallowed by the union.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I hear northern Russia is a paradise.
Subtracting the balance sheet value from the purchase price is not "making up". Subtraction is not magic to many people.
If "goodwill" is not the right word for the value of intangible assets such as trademarks, what is?
Start by picking some word that doesn't already have a specific alternate meaning in the same context.
In the history of the world, there has never been a "good" government. When things were at their absolute best, the government was mediocre and it didn't last.
The usual quote for this situation is Thomas Paine:
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.
I am glad this hedge fund guy is moving to a purely theoretical field. If he can't learn from history, at least he can't hurt the economy with silly financial deals.
And not taking the feelings of others into consideration is?
The feelings of others are their own problem. I don't control your feelings. You do. If I take your feelings "into consideration", then I let you choose how I live my life and what decisions I make. So no. No one should let the feelings of someone else dictate their choices.
Having good manners is a virtue. Anything beyond that is a capitulation to others' control.
After January, McCain or Obama will be President. Both of them voted for this bill.
So no. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. But no.
Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings. Then your silly "everybody does it" argument might at least be factual. (It's still a ridiculous argument, even if everybody did do it -- but everybody doesn't.)
They don't need a Constitutional Amendment. There already is one -- the 2nd one. They'll just come up with a reason it doesn't apply.
The President, Congress, and the Supreme Court decide what they want. The Constitution is now used mostly as a rhetorical device to support an argument or to be worked around or ignored otherwise.
Yeah, it's amazing how sensitive people can be when offending some religious group might get your building bombed or your artists shot or stabbed.
McCain voted for the FISA bill. And Barack also voted for the FISA bill.
Meanwhile, McCain supports your 2nd Amendment rights. Barack says he supports them but has voted and advocated against them several times in the past.
Irony: Having to win a lottery in order to get taught how to do math.
Unless we bring back lynch mobs.
Those were the days.
Who would a lynch mob be more likely to attack: an athlete or someone who is good at math? Which one might be more likely to escape this mob?
Often they actually are synonymous. Other times, when they aren't, there might be a reason why not. And sometimes you just get caught taking both sides of an argument and there's no point in carrying on the conversation any longer. (John Kerry could have used that insight.)
Rather people willingly chose an under-qualified president...
Even now, Barack Obama is "scary" to these people because they think his intelligence means he's hiding something, or that the fact that he speaks eloquently and presents intelligent-sounding solutions means that he's a know-it-all.
Which is it? Do qualifications matter or do you support Barack Obama even though he has only served 144 days in the Senate?
People should be free. Governments use force (or the threat of force) to rule people. Larger governments do more of it. Smaller governments do less. Representative governments are the same as any other governments in this regard, except a majority rules in a representative government. But people are still ruled, and they are ruled more by a large government than by a small one.
This is provably true based on taxes alone. Taxes are taken from people against their will. They are not a willing donation. Large governments tax more than small ones. Americans work an average of about 5 months a year to pay their taxes. During that time, there's no way they could reasonably be called free.
On the other hand, the Republicans want to control what women do with their sexual organs,
It really bugs me when women use their sexual organs to build an accurate scale model of a 17th century cathedral. Is that what you mean by this? Even though it bugs me, I think they should be free to do it.
want to prevent parents from getting their daughters vaccinated against potentially life-threatening diseases (cancer causing HPV strains),
Vaccination police on standby. Alert! Alert! ... What the hell are you talking about?
and want to create laws dictating whom you may or may not marry in order to enforce their religious beliefs.
Bob and his baby sister can't get married now? I mean, Bob's already married to 3 other women and engaged to his mother, but we should respect his choices, right?
By the way, some of by far the freest countries in the world have nationalize healthcare, and it works EXCELLENTLY.
In the USA, we have the best health care. Some people merely complain it's expensive.
What if someone actually could make it compelling to students though? Not quite entertaining, but enjoyable. What if they learned better because of the style and the energy and the personality of the teacher? What if he was one of the best teachers and had broadcast talent to connect to an audience on camera?
Lots of students might learn math as a result.
We'll never know.
So lets have a non-government system where free people make their own choices. Then you won't have to spend so much energy worrying that someone might have a religious perspective. They can be responsible for their children and you can be responsible for yours. Everyone chooses for themselves and their family only.
And conservatives, by definition, prevent change.
Political understanding does not come from a dictionary. You may find it, but you'll have to put the dictionary down and listen to what people actually say and watch what their positions are. Many "conservatives" want change in the schools (among other things).
So you should be attacking them as hard or harder, and when you don't, that shows you aren't intellectually consistent, and thus not worth listening to.
How about if we just get the government out of the system and let people make their own choices as free people? It seems better than attacking people.
And saying that "the union prevents change" isn't an attack. It's just a fact. The union prevents change except when change benefits the union and union members. That's what unions exist to do. And students are not members of the teachers' union.
An expert saying that we should do something is not equivalent to them trying to run our lives.
But people trying to run your life will claim expertise as qualification for the job.
But look at Bush's policies, and what the republican party has been doing, and then tell me that they don't dream of being my king.
Last thing I heard, deregulation was what the Republicans did wrong. Before that, it was tax cuts. They prevented the government takeover of health care. They wanted to move Social Security to a private-sector system. They got rid of the 55 MPH speed limit. They opposed a government enforced minimum wage increase many times. What kind of kings are these who want us to keep more of our own money and make more of our own choices?
Bush has 3 months left. Then what? Which choice do you think will lead to more power in the hands of government and less in the hands of individuals?
I do not support him, but at least with McCain we might get some bills vetoed. Then we can try again in 2012. Maybe the country can find a pro-freedom candidate by then.
+1 Informative
Could that possibly have to do with a high teacher to student ratio leading to higher quality education for the students?
It's possible. We may never know for sure because no other structures will ever be tried.
Even the things that are tried and shown to be successful are only used if there's a benefit to the teachers and the union.
Its pretty clear to me, at least, that the Republican party has been saying that intelligence is bad because intelligent people are elitist, and pointing that out isn't condescending.
Elitism is bad. People who consider themselves members of the ruling class are elitists (among other things). A ruling class is bad because people should not be "ruled", rather they should be free. (The original post connected intelligence and elitism. I did not. There is a connection: elitists consider themselves intelligent. Note this does not imply that intelligent people are elitists, nor that elitists are necessarily correct in their self-assessment.)
Nor is it condescending to say that we should probably give some weight to people who are experts in their field of expertise.
If "weight" is a euphemism for ruling, then no. Experts should not be given "weight". Appeals to expertise are a common tactic to justify ruling people. I thank experts for their knowledge and guidance. I may be able to use it to make my own choices in my own life. Experts are not needed to make my choices for me.
When it comes to the president, being intelligent should be a very desirable trait.
Desirable, yes. Many things are desirable. But I would rather have a stupid President who wanted people to be free than a genius who decided he deserved to be my king.
It's not malicious. It's what unions are. Unions prevent change that might, in any way, be a negative to their members or the hierarchy or the size of the union. They also promote change to benefit the members of the union.
They do not exist to help children learn. That is simply not the reason the union exists.
Not at all, but if you want to keep great teachers who ensure productivity and achievement, you have to keep them comfortable, otherwise they leave for some other job. This is a basic rule of business.
This assumes the result of "productivity and achievement". That result is not in evidence in much of the educational system. That's why change is in order. If the system were already great then you might have a point. But it is not.
No change can happen though. It is disallowed by the union.
Their statism is a function of their elitism. To them, their elite status justifies their position as the ruling class.