I think they're just bringing in the best hired gun that they can. No different from any other company or organization in that respect. This case is absolutely huge to them. Of course they're going to get the best counsel they can. Wouldn't they be foolish if they didn't?
73% of Americans were once in favor of slavery too, that doesn't make it the right choice.
Then Democrats should be honest and make that argument straight to Americans. What they're doing now is the equivalent of a child sticking fingers in their ears and going la la la I can't hear you.
""There are 20-plus million acres that are currently leased by the oil companies which have either been drilled and then capped or never drilled at all."
Those lands might have oil. In places we know there's oil... off the coasts and in ANWR... oil companies have been forbidden to drill for purely political reasons. So blaming the oil companies for wanting to prioritize drilling on places other than their current leased lands is hypocritical... they leased them because that was the only alternative after liberals forbade them from drilling in the places that they knew had oil.
What Democrats are doing here is just a stalling tactic, and people see right through it.
"Oil is more than halfway to being used up."
Even if that were true (and there's a lot of dispute on that), that's existing fields. It certainly isn't true for the massive fields we haven't even touched yet, including the arctic, the US coasts, and of of Brazil's coast. There's almost certainly more fields we haven't found yet. And that's not including all of the massive amounts of other sources that could be converted to gasoline, like shale and coal. This "peak"... this "scarcity"... is artificially induced.
"Mark my words: it may be forced on us by the rest of the world community, but at some point down the line, George Bush and Dick Cheney will have to face what Pinochet faced."
Only in your fevered fantasies. And there are affordable treatment options for that kind of thing now.
"The public is wrong. The price of crack has gone up and instead of trying to get off, they're demanding increased supply."
You get points for at least being honest about your position. That puts you ahead of Pelosi and Reid.
"Yeah, that tends to happen in the House, where the majority tends to do whatever it wants. In the Senate, the minority has more rights. And your party has played the Senate rules and Harry Reid like a fiddle. Seriously and with no sarcasm, well done."
In the previous Senate, Democrats did the same thing Republicans are doing now. Face it, how you look at an obstructionist minority depends on which side of the fence you're on. When Democrats were blocking judges, they were saving democracy... if you're a Democrat. When Republicans were out-maneuvering Harry Reid, they were saving Democracy... if you're a Republican.
" All your average person knows is that Democrats promised they'd fix everything the Republicans screwed up and they're not doing it."
People aren't quite as dumb as clueless as some think. Liberals seem to have this idea that the public supports this new swath of New Deal-type legislation Democrats want. I think not. Democrats got the majority because the public was angry at Republicans, and Democrats aren't the GOP, so they get in. I think Democrats are making a big mistake if they truly believe there's a groundswell of support for a new Great Society or something. Hell, we haven't forgotten the old Great Society.
People aren't mad at Congress because Democrats aren't liberal enough. You're making a huge error in judgement if you believe that. They're mad at Congress because Democrats promised that, among other things, they'd be fiscally conservative and the "most ethical Congress in history". And from what people can see, the Congress is just the same old clown car, only with different drivers.
I'd call 73 percent overwhelming, wouldn't you? And even in California, long an anti-drilling bastion, support for drilling is now at 51 percent and climbing.
Keeping an issue front and center when it hurts your opponents is effective politics.
Which just shows what this is about — not solutions, not governance, not RESCUING THE ECONOMY THEY DESTROYED...politics.
Politics is how you get things done. Politics is nothing but action from a set of ideas. Everytime the Democrats "get things done", they're engaging in politics too. As for the economy "they destroyed"... who? Which party has been in control of Congress when gas prices shot up and the economy downturned?
And a downturn (not even a recession... we know that now) is "destroyed"? Are you kidding me?
"The point is that more drilling isn't a fix. More drilling in the US will provide a relatively small amount of oil which will delay our energy problems for months, maybe a few years at best."
More drilling alone isn't a fix by itself, but it's patently stupid and dishonest to say that more oil in the supply line won't help prices.
"The Republicans are putting on a show today because it looks good to the unwashed masses, but getting their drilling won't solve our energy problems."
I notice that, to liberals, when the issue is liberal and popular with Americans, then they're a great and wise people, righteous in their anger at the Republicans. But when the issue is conservative and supported by Americans, they're stupid unwashed masses.
If you were really concerned about us solving our energy problems, you'd actually let us solve them. We've got plenty of ways to do it... more drilling, more shale, more coal to gasoline, more nuclear... liberals just don't like those options. What you're really mad about is that we won't do it your way... with nothing but biofuels and electric cars.
Then I guess the vote could wait a few weeks without the economy imploding yes?
The point of the Republicans is that if the Dems have their way, there'll be no vote on it at all... not today, not a few weeks, never. Because the issue hurts them in the polls.
Keeping an issue front and center when it hurts your opponents is effective politics.
This may have been a "stunt", but it's politics. You act like this stuff never happens. The whole thing was done to protest the Democrats' plan of adjourning the Congress so that there would be no more calls on the House floor to open up oil expoloration, something that, despite your opinion on the matter, the public overwhelmingly supports. Pelosi's idea was, no session, no cameras, no problem. She figures the issue will hurt Democrats less if no one actually speaking about it in Congress. And be honest, it's smart politics, and if the positions were reversed, and it were Democrats running this protest, you'd be screaming like a banshee about how fascist the GOP was for "cutting off debate".
The motion to adjourn passed? Of course it did. Right along party lines. The GOP wants to keep this issue in the press, because it's popular and it helps them. The Democrats are hoping this issue goes away, because it hurts them. What's the approval rating of Congress now? 9 percent?
By the way, "Dogma Du Jour". Good, lets have more, because the US could be an energy exporter if it wanted to be. Hell yes, drill more. Use every option we have. You want to get political? Fine. The Democrats "Dogma Du Jour" is you people are just going to have to do with less and pay more for it. I'll take our position over yours all day long.
"Oh, you mean by correctly predicting the energy crisis and proposing serious workable solutions, anticipating Peak Oil by three decades?"
Carter's "solution" was to shiver in a sweater, and have the rest of the country do the same. His solution was "less"; less energy, less prosperity, less freedom. To hell with that. At least Carter tried to set an example in his crusade, I suppose. Al Gore hasn't given up his private jet.
And the "peak oil" thing is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. The middle eastern wells may or may not have peaked, but we know there's a lot of untapped oil in the world; the Russians are trying to lay exclusive claim to what is almost certainly a huge arctic field, we're starting to wake up and go after new fields off of our coasts and in Alaska, and just this past year a massive new field was found off the coast of Brazil. Peak Oil is a sham. We're nowhere near peak oil yet. And that's not including things that can be converted to gasoline, like shale and coal. Our energy "shortages" are self inflicted and artificial.
Oil isn't a permanent solution, but what energy source is? You either run out of it or find something better. For cars and trucks, there is nothing better than petroleum for the foreseeable future. You're not going to get enough ethanol to meet the demand, let alone what it would do (and IS doing) to the price of food. Pure electric cars suck because batteries suck, and that doesn't appear to likely change soon. The best you're going to get is a gasoline-electric hybrid in that area. Like it or not, petroleum has powered the world's industry and economy for decades (bringing us tremendous prosperity in the process), and likely will continue to do so for at least decades more.
"How come the press isn't reporting on two latino political prisoners in US jail, who've been railroaded by the corrupt Bush administration and his cronies, for arresting a known Mexican drug smuggler?"
Arrested the drug runner? Better than that, they shot him in the ass. Jail time? Hell, they should have gotten a promotion.
"How much power the grid has to transmit depends on demand, not on supply. If no one's drawing power, then the grid doesn't have to transmit anything."
Perhaps I'm putting it wrong then, but according to local news sources in Oregon, there was a dangerous spike in the power grid that caused them a lot of problems, and it was because the system couldn't handle the sudden surge of wind.
There's no disk in a EECIV, just a nice reliable ROM. Without microprocessors and electric fuel injectors you'ld be stuck with an analog open loop system (carburetor).
Uhh, I liked carburetors, thanks. In fact, I liked it when I could tune up my car myself without a bunch of digital instruments. When I was younger I enjoyed working on my car... I spent many weekends with the hood open. The parent poster is right in that the computerization of cars has taken some of the fun out of working on them. We always seem to equate analog with bad here, but I liked it when cars were simpler to build and maintain, thanks.
"I no longer give to charity for an extension of those same reasons. Charities are now run like businesses, with salaried fund raisers, and wage slaver collectors on the streets. They pay to make money, and they make more money this way. Since making money is their primary cause, they see it as a good thing."
I understand where you're coming from, since I give a good bit to charities myself... however, don't write all charities off because of the smarmy, professional fund raisers that some employ. A good way to gauge good charities is with Charity Navigator, which rates charities on a variety of topics, including fundraising and expenses. If a charity is spending too much on fundraising and administration, it's all laid out for you to see. Most also have their mailing list and privacy policies available there. Before I give to any cause now, I check Charity Navigator first.
" Wind and solar probably can't deliver the wattage"
More important than that, what power they can and always will supply will be inconsistent. Wind isn't constant, and everyone has cloudy days. A day with no wind means no power if you're relying on windmills. And during storms, you can overload the grid. Recently in Oregon, a wind farm nearly blew the local power grid when storms pushed wind speeds so high that the windmills suddenly pushed more power into the system than it could handle. Wind and solar will always supplement other sources, not replace them.
I want to retain control of my car, thank you very much, and adding a bunch of so called 'var computers' is not going to do that.
Keep your grubby mitts off my vehicle.
It's far too late for that. You "lost" control of your cars in the early 80's, when they started using computers to regulate everything from fuel flow to your transmission. The only difference now is that you can actually see the computer interface.
" Robert McDowell makes a case against government regulation of the Internet, opining that 'engineers, not politicians or bureaucrats, should solve engineering problems."
"McDowell is one of the two FCC commissioners who did not vote with the majority to punish Comcast for their BitTorrent throttling. "
So do we love him for his "hands off" governing philosophy, or do we hate him for his "hands off" governing philosophy?
"In the 1960s, we used to have parades that celebrated astronauts. Let me say this again - we had PARADES... for... ROCKET SCIENTISTS... To become one was something that was considered the height of a child's aspirations. No wonder we were sending people to the moon with a pocket calculator and a roll of duct tape."
We never had parades for "rocket scientists".
We had parades for astronauts, people that "rocket scientists" claimed weren't even neccessary for the space program. Werner Von Braun and his team initially wanted an unmanned program, and when we decided to send men up, the rocket scientists didn't want to give them any control at all... they wanted all operations to be done remotely from the ground. They viewed the men in the capsules as less than worthless.
The public saw it differently. The astronauts were really war heroes... Cold War heroes. So quit pretending there was ever a time when scientists were envied and lauded above all others. From the 30's onward, scientists were portrayed as Mad scientists more often than not. This era of respect for science you paint never existed. People have always been awed by scientific achievements, but were deeply suspicious of scientists themselves.
This Utopian era of love for scientists you describe never existed. America has always had a love/hate relationship with science.
"Let the poor get even poorer education, let the poorest be locked out of education entirely, let the rich monopolize the best resources, let the wealth gap grow even more obscenely."
Yeah, because socialist education was such a great success. The Soviets had great mathematicians that had the same standard of living as garbage collectors and bus drivers. Boy, that Soviet economy really was the life, wasn't it?
Shall we go all the way, and just kill off the smart and talented people and get it over with?
"There's the big misconception. Understanding art, literature, design, history, communications and yes interpretive dance IS in itself a core skill set."
More than that, even if you're a mathematician/scientist/engineer, if you don't have a strong, broad understanding of literature, history, and philosophy, I don't see how you can call yourself educated.
J, I have to disagree with something... I think that for many jobs, you don't need more than a high school education. I know people that worked their way through college at a Starbucks or a department store, or a big box retailer... after they graduated, they were right back working in the same place. Sometimes they stay there, and it's apparent that the degree had little to no bearing on their advancement chances. I think we're pressing too many kids to go to college when they don't need to, simply because we've developed this mantra that you're a failure if you don't go to college. And that the only reason that so many go in the first place... parental/societal pressure, when they'd be better off (and making a lot more money) getting that apprenticeship with a plumber or a bricklayer.
I'm not knocking the value of a liberal arts education... I think it's still very important. But too many kids major in English or History or Social Work simply because they're not really interested in anything. They'd be better off joining the military or finding a trade, because all they want to do is make money, and college is supposed to be about so much more than that. And they're just biding their time before they go back to the stockroom or latte counter.
This sounds mean, but not everyone grows up to be an astronaut, and not everyone can grow up to be an astronaut. The world needs ditch diggers too... and stockboys, coffee makers, and retail clerks.
"Meanwhile, we can still do a better job of teaching science (mostly in making kids interested in science). Perhaps the only way to get the parents involved is to teach this generation that science isn't jsut a waste of time, so that they encourage thier kids in turn."
While I'm all for improving science and math education, I have a problem with a push to get more kids on a math and science track by fiat. I've come to the opinion that in any population, only X number of kids are going to be interested in those fields. People act as if we just improved the classes, science and math interest would suddenly take off among kids, and especially among minorities and girls. And I just don't think that's true. I think kids that are are naturally interested pretty much know it, even if their curriculum isn't first class. I just don't think that if we put a Jaime Escalante in every class, suddenly everyone would be interested in calculus. I think that's a fantasy, a pipe dream. Some kids are interested in math and science as a career, and some kids aren't... most kids, actually. I think we could get some more involved, but not the numbers that education reformers claim.
"The days of teachers beating students into their studies are long gone. But not so for Mom and Dad."
Try taking a paddle to Junior in some states... it's an instant trip to jail for Dad, and a legal nightmare with "children's advocate groups" and the state's department of social services bringing down lawyers on the parents. You don't even need real proof to arrest a parent for abuse anymore, just an accusation. It's getting to the point that corporal punishment of any kind, no matter how appropriate, is being banned "for the children".
Assuming you can get over that mountain, how do you deal with kids that don't give a damn? Kids tend to hate school for a good reason... for kids, sitting in front of a blackboard all day sucks. There's simply no way to get around that. And what is the standard answer of reformers? Let's keep 'em in class even longer, and start them in school earlier, and keep them there later. Better yet, lets send everyone to college, whether they're fit to go or not, whether they really want to or not.
I look at Finland's school system... kids spend less hours per day in class than we do, start at a later age, and graduate earlier... they spend much less time in classrooms than American students do... and yet they beat the piss out of American kids in test scores. Not only is "more money" not the answer, I've come to believe that "more school" isn't either.
"You're right, our time is much better spent on pedantic jackassery."
He has a point though. I'm sick of people trying to "save the world". Furthermore, I'm sick of them trying to coax me into their movement. I can't recall the author, and I'm paraphrasing here, but I once read a quote that said something like "Beware those that are crusading to save the world; it's almost always a pretext to rule it".
These people want to tell us what to drive, where to live, how to live, what to wear, and what to eat. These are the same busybodies that are trying to regulate everything from the amount of fat in your foods to the mix of ethanol at your gas stations. Tyrants don't always conquer you with armored divisions. Sometimes they use activist groups and government bureaucrats and just regulate you into submission.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they're just bringing in the best hired gun that they can. No different from any other company or organization in that respect. This case is absolutely huge to them. Of course they're going to get the best counsel they can. Wouldn't they be foolish if they didn't?
73% of Americans were once in favor of slavery too, that doesn't make it the right choice.
Then Democrats should be honest and make that argument straight to Americans. What they're doing now is the equivalent of a child sticking fingers in their ears and going la la la I can't hear you.
""There are 20-plus million acres that are currently leased by the oil companies which have either been drilled and then capped or never drilled at all."
Those lands might have oil. In places we know there's oil... off the coasts and in ANWR... oil companies have been forbidden to drill for purely political reasons. So blaming the oil companies for wanting to prioritize drilling on places other than their current leased lands is hypocritical... they leased them because that was the only alternative after liberals forbade them from drilling in the places that they knew had oil.
What Democrats are doing here is just a stalling tactic, and people see right through it.
"Oil is more than halfway to being used up."
Even if that were true (and there's a lot of dispute on that), that's existing fields. It certainly isn't true for the massive fields we haven't even touched yet, including the arctic, the US coasts, and of of Brazil's coast. There's almost certainly more fields we haven't found yet. And that's not including all of the massive amounts of other sources that could be converted to gasoline, like shale and coal. This "peak"... this "scarcity"... is artificially induced.
"Mark my words: it may be forced on us by the rest of the world community, but at some point down the line, George Bush and Dick Cheney will have to face what Pinochet faced."
Only in your fevered fantasies. And there are affordable treatment options for that kind of thing now.
"The public is wrong. The price of crack has gone up and instead of trying to get off, they're demanding increased supply."
You get points for at least being honest about your position. That puts you ahead of Pelosi and Reid.
"Yeah, that tends to happen in the House, where the majority tends to do whatever it wants. In the Senate, the minority has more rights. And your party has played the Senate rules and Harry Reid like a fiddle. Seriously and with no sarcasm, well done."
In the previous Senate, Democrats did the same thing Republicans are doing now. Face it, how you look at an obstructionist minority depends on which side of the fence you're on. When Democrats were blocking judges, they were saving democracy... if you're a Democrat. When Republicans were out-maneuvering Harry Reid, they were saving Democracy... if you're a Republican.
" All your average person knows is that Democrats promised they'd fix everything the Republicans screwed up and they're not doing it."
People aren't quite as dumb as clueless as some think. Liberals seem to have this idea that the public supports this new swath of New Deal-type legislation Democrats want. I think not. Democrats got the majority because the public was angry at Republicans, and Democrats aren't the GOP, so they get in. I think Democrats are making a big mistake if they truly believe there's a groundswell of support for a new Great Society or something. Hell, we haven't forgotten the old Great Society.
People aren't mad at Congress because Democrats aren't liberal enough. You're making a huge error in judgement if you believe that. They're mad at Congress because Democrats promised that, among other things, they'd be fiscally conservative and the "most ethical Congress in history". And from what people can see, the Congress is just the same old clown car, only with different drivers.
The public overwhelmingly supports it? Citation or you're just talking out your ass. The last 3 polls I saw stated exactly the opposite.
My pleasue. Here you go. I got my poll results from CNN. Where are you getting yours?
73 percent of Americans favor offshore drilling.
I'd call 73 percent overwhelming, wouldn't you? And even in California, long an anti-drilling bastion, support for drilling is now at 51 percent and climbing.
Which just shows what this is about — not solutions, not governance, not RESCUING THE ECONOMY THEY DESTROYED...politics.
Politics is how you get things done. Politics is nothing but action from a set of ideas. Everytime the Democrats "get things done", they're engaging in politics too. As for the economy "they destroyed"... who? Which party has been in control of Congress when gas prices shot up and the economy downturned?
And a downturn (not even a recession... we know that now) is "destroyed"? Are you kidding me?
"The point is that more drilling isn't a fix. More drilling in the US will provide a relatively small amount of oil which will delay our energy problems for months, maybe a few years at best."
More drilling alone isn't a fix by itself, but it's patently stupid and dishonest to say that more oil in the supply line won't help prices.
"The Republicans are putting on a show today because it looks good to the unwashed masses, but getting their drilling won't solve our energy problems."
I notice that, to liberals, when the issue is liberal and popular with Americans, then they're a great and wise people, righteous in their anger at the Republicans. But when the issue is conservative and supported by Americans, they're stupid unwashed masses.
If you were really concerned about us solving our energy problems, you'd actually let us solve them. We've got plenty of ways to do it... more drilling, more shale, more coal to gasoline, more nuclear... liberals just don't like those options. What you're really mad about is that we won't do it your way... with nothing but biofuels and electric cars.
Then I guess the vote could wait a few weeks without the economy imploding yes?
The point of the Republicans is that if the Dems have their way, there'll be no vote on it at all... not today, not a few weeks, never. Because the issue hurts them in the polls.
Keeping an issue front and center when it hurts your opponents is effective politics.
This may have been a "stunt", but it's politics. You act like this stuff never happens. The whole thing was done to protest the Democrats' plan of adjourning the Congress so that there would be no more calls on the House floor to open up oil expoloration, something that, despite your opinion on the matter, the public overwhelmingly supports. Pelosi's idea was, no session, no cameras, no problem. She figures the issue will hurt Democrats less if no one actually speaking about it in Congress. And be honest, it's smart politics, and if the positions were reversed, and it were Democrats running this protest, you'd be screaming like a banshee about how fascist the GOP was for "cutting off debate".
The motion to adjourn passed? Of course it did. Right along party lines. The GOP wants to keep this issue in the press, because it's popular and it helps them. The Democrats are hoping this issue goes away, because it hurts them. What's the approval rating of Congress now? 9 percent?
By the way, "Dogma Du Jour". Good, lets have more, because the US could be an energy exporter if it wanted to be. Hell yes, drill more. Use every option we have. You want to get political? Fine. The Democrats "Dogma Du Jour" is you people are just going to have to do with less and pay more for it. I'll take our position over yours all day long.
I think liberal Slashdotters protest too much...
"Oh, you mean by correctly predicting the energy crisis and proposing serious workable solutions, anticipating Peak Oil by three decades?"
Carter's "solution" was to shiver in a sweater, and have the rest of the country do the same. His solution was "less"; less energy, less prosperity, less freedom. To hell with that. At least Carter tried to set an example in his crusade, I suppose. Al Gore hasn't given up his private jet.
And the "peak oil" thing is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. The middle eastern wells may or may not have peaked, but we know there's a lot of untapped oil in the world; the Russians are trying to lay exclusive claim to what is almost certainly a huge arctic field, we're starting to wake up and go after new fields off of our coasts and in Alaska, and just this past year a massive new field was found off the coast of Brazil. Peak Oil is a sham. We're nowhere near peak oil yet. And that's not including things that can be converted to gasoline, like shale and coal. Our energy "shortages" are self inflicted and artificial.
Oil isn't a permanent solution, but what energy source is? You either run out of it or find something better. For cars and trucks, there is nothing better than petroleum for the foreseeable future. You're not going to get enough ethanol to meet the demand, let alone what it would do (and IS doing) to the price of food. Pure electric cars suck because batteries suck, and that doesn't appear to likely change soon. The best you're going to get is a gasoline-electric hybrid in that area. Like it or not, petroleum has powered the world's industry and economy for decades (bringing us tremendous prosperity in the process), and likely will continue to do so for at least decades more.
"How come the press isn't reporting on two latino political prisoners in US jail, who've been railroaded by the corrupt Bush administration and his cronies, for arresting a known Mexican drug smuggler?"
Arrested the drug runner? Better than that, they shot him in the ass. Jail time? Hell, they should have gotten a promotion.
"How much power the grid has to transmit depends on demand, not on supply. If no one's drawing power, then the grid doesn't have to transmit anything."
Perhaps I'm putting it wrong then, but according to local news sources in Oregon, there was a dangerous spike in the power grid that caused them a lot of problems, and it was because the system couldn't handle the sudden surge of wind.
Link: KGW Portland
There's no disk in a EECIV, just a nice reliable ROM. Without microprocessors and electric fuel injectors you'ld be stuck with an analog open loop system (carburetor).
Uhh, I liked carburetors, thanks. In fact, I liked it when I could tune up my car myself without a bunch of digital instruments. When I was younger I enjoyed working on my car... I spent many weekends with the hood open. The parent poster is right in that the computerization of cars has taken some of the fun out of working on them. We always seem to equate analog with bad here, but I liked it when cars were simpler to build and maintain, thanks.
"I no longer give to charity for an extension of those same reasons. Charities are now run like businesses, with salaried fund raisers, and wage slaver collectors on the streets. They pay to make money, and they make more money this way. Since making money is their primary cause, they see it as a good thing."
I understand where you're coming from, since I give a good bit to charities myself... however, don't write all charities off because of the smarmy, professional fund raisers that some employ. A good way to gauge good charities is with Charity Navigator, which rates charities on a variety of topics, including fundraising and expenses. If a charity is spending too much on fundraising and administration, it's all laid out for you to see. Most also have their mailing list and privacy policies available there. Before I give to any cause now, I check Charity Navigator first.
" Wind and solar probably can't deliver the wattage"
More important than that, what power they can and always will supply will be inconsistent. Wind isn't constant, and everyone has cloudy days. A day with no wind means no power if you're relying on windmills. And during storms, you can overload the grid. Recently in Oregon, a wind farm nearly blew the local power grid when storms pushed wind speeds so high that the windmills suddenly pushed more power into the system than it could handle. Wind and solar will always supplement other sources, not replace them.
I want to retain control of my car, thank you very much, and adding a bunch of so called 'var computers' is not going to do that.
Keep your grubby mitts off my vehicle.
It's far too late for that. You "lost" control of your cars in the early 80's, when they started using computers to regulate everything from fuel flow to your transmission. The only difference now is that you can actually see the computer interface.
" Robert McDowell makes a case against government regulation of the Internet, opining that 'engineers, not politicians or bureaucrats, should solve engineering problems."
"McDowell is one of the two FCC commissioners who did not vote with the majority to punish Comcast for their BitTorrent throttling. "
So do we love him for his "hands off" governing philosophy, or do we hate him for his "hands off" governing philosophy?
"In the 1960s, we used to have parades that celebrated astronauts. Let me say this again - we had PARADES... for... ROCKET SCIENTISTS... To become one was something that was considered the height of a child's aspirations. No wonder we were sending people to the moon with a pocket calculator and a roll of duct tape."
We never had parades for "rocket scientists".
We had parades for astronauts, people that "rocket scientists" claimed weren't even neccessary for the space program. Werner Von Braun and his team initially wanted an unmanned program, and when we decided to send men up, the rocket scientists didn't want to give them any control at all... they wanted all operations to be done remotely from the ground. They viewed the men in the capsules as less than worthless.
The public saw it differently. The astronauts were really war heroes... Cold War heroes. So quit pretending there was ever a time when scientists were envied and lauded above all others. From the 30's onward, scientists were portrayed as Mad scientists more often than not. This era of respect for science you paint never existed. People have always been awed by scientific achievements, but were deeply suspicious of scientists themselves.
This Utopian era of love for scientists you describe never existed. America has always had a love/hate relationship with science.
"Let the poor get even poorer education, let the poorest be locked out of education entirely, let the rich monopolize the best resources, let the wealth gap grow even more obscenely."
Yeah, because socialist education was such a great success. The Soviets had great mathematicians that had the same standard of living as garbage collectors and bus drivers. Boy, that Soviet economy really was the life, wasn't it?
Shall we go all the way, and just kill off the smart and talented people and get it over with?
"There's the big misconception. Understanding art, literature, design, history, communications and yes interpretive dance IS in itself a core skill set."
More than that, even if you're a mathematician/scientist/engineer, if you don't have a strong, broad understanding of literature, history, and philosophy, I don't see how you can call yourself educated.
J, I have to disagree with something... I think that for many jobs, you don't need more than a high school education. I know people that worked their way through college at a Starbucks or a department store, or a big box retailer... after they graduated, they were right back working in the same place. Sometimes they stay there, and it's apparent that the degree had little to no bearing on their advancement chances. I think we're pressing too many kids to go to college when they don't need to, simply because we've developed this mantra that you're a failure if you don't go to college. And that the only reason that so many go in the first place... parental/societal pressure, when they'd be better off (and making a lot more money) getting that apprenticeship with a plumber or a bricklayer.
I'm not knocking the value of a liberal arts education... I think it's still very important. But too many kids major in English or History or Social Work simply because they're not really interested in anything. They'd be better off joining the military or finding a trade, because all they want to do is make money, and college is supposed to be about so much more than that. And they're just biding their time before they go back to the stockroom or latte counter.
This sounds mean, but not everyone grows up to be an astronaut, and not everyone can grow up to be an astronaut. The world needs ditch diggers too... and stockboys, coffee makers, and retail clerks.
"Meanwhile, we can still do a better job of teaching science (mostly in making kids interested in science). Perhaps the only way to get the parents involved is to teach this generation that science isn't jsut a waste of time, so that they encourage thier kids in turn."
While I'm all for improving science and math education, I have a problem with a push to get more kids on a math and science track by fiat. I've come to the opinion that in any population, only X number of kids are going to be interested in those fields. People act as if we just improved the classes, science and math interest would suddenly take off among kids, and especially among minorities and girls. And I just don't think that's true. I think kids that are are naturally interested pretty much know it, even if their curriculum isn't first class. I just don't think that if we put a Jaime Escalante in every class, suddenly everyone would be interested in calculus. I think that's a fantasy, a pipe dream. Some kids are interested in math and science as a career, and some kids aren't... most kids, actually. I think we could get some more involved, but not the numbers that education reformers claim.
"The days of teachers beating students into their studies are long gone. But not so for Mom and Dad."
Try taking a paddle to Junior in some states... it's an instant trip to jail for Dad, and a legal nightmare with "children's advocate groups" and the state's department of social services bringing down lawyers on the parents. You don't even need real proof to arrest a parent for abuse anymore, just an accusation. It's getting to the point that corporal punishment of any kind, no matter how appropriate, is being banned "for the children".
"Get the parents more involved".
Assuming you can get over that mountain, how do you deal with kids that don't give a damn? Kids tend to hate school for a good reason... for kids, sitting in front of a blackboard all day sucks. There's simply no way to get around that. And what is the standard answer of reformers? Let's keep 'em in class even longer, and start them in school earlier, and keep them there later. Better yet, lets send everyone to college, whether they're fit to go or not, whether they really want to or not.
I look at Finland's school system... kids spend less hours per day in class than we do, start at a later age, and graduate earlier... they spend much less time in classrooms than American students do... and yet they beat the piss out of American kids in test scores. Not only is "more money" not the answer, I've come to believe that "more school" isn't either.
"You're right, our time is much better spent on pedantic jackassery."
He has a point though. I'm sick of people trying to "save the world". Furthermore, I'm sick of them trying to coax me into their movement. I can't recall the author, and I'm paraphrasing here, but I once read a quote that said something like "Beware those that are crusading to save the world; it's almost always a pretext to rule it".
These people want to tell us what to drive, where to live, how to live, what to wear, and what to eat. These are the same busybodies that are trying to regulate everything from the amount of fat in your foods to the mix of ethanol at your gas stations. Tyrants don't always conquer you with armored divisions. Sometimes they use activist groups and government bureaucrats and just regulate you into submission.