"Actually the superior educational system in Germany has helped them a lot. They are the number one exporter of manufactured goods. And they're able to make all these superior manufactured goods despite the fact that they are among the most labor-friendly societies in the world"
What makes it superior? Germany is #1 in exports? It exports more than China? According to Wikipedia (the source of all true knowledge), Germany is not #1 globally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports) It is #2 after China. And, this is based on 2009 numbers, when the U.S. manufacturing sector was hard hit by depression. Our manufacturing states have greater than 25% unemployment. Oddly enough, unemployment is greater were labor laws are pro-union.
What you wrote above suggests that one requires a good education to be an assembly line worker. In fact, you don't have to have a good education. You don't even have to be literate.
"The problem here is that decisions are being made by a group of people with an agenda to pass that completely goes against our countries constitution. Even worse, they're trying to educate our future children concepts that are polar opposites of what our country was founded upon."
Have you reviewed the changes the Texas School Board adopted? Are you a Texan?
You state this group has an "agenda...that completely goes against our countries(sic) constitution(sic)". The "agenda" was to balance the educational diet of the student.
What happened here? Texas reviews its curricula periodically (every 10 years). They received an "expert's recommendation" on a history curriculum that they red-lined. Have we compared that expert's recommendation to the (then) current Texas history curriculum? We are not hearing that they are taking the current curriculum and changing it, but that they are adjusting a recommendation.
Have you reviewed the original recommendation? Have you reviewed the redlines? Or, are you just parroting what others are telling you? Have you compared this year's review with review of the same curriculum the past time? The time before that? How do you know the have an agenda that would completely destroy our Constitution?
Hell, this isn't even the material. This is the REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT.
You don't. You are upset because you've been told 1) the Constitution bars religion from society and government and 2) that Texas is trying to let churches run the school by reengineering history.
"I'm a conservative. My real problem with this is that a strong central government (Texas) is making decisions that should be made at the local level."
Please review the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The question is whether the States respectively have the authority to educate. State run Public Education was rare when the Constitution was ratified, but it did exist. Therefore, States do have the authority to educate.
Do you question whether a state can set educational standards?
The State of Texas _funds_ public education (http://www.texasbudgetsource.com/education) in accordance with the Constitution, so Texas asserts its authority in managing that education. Its Constitution gives it the authority to educate: "Article 7, section 2 of the Texas Constitution only authorizes the legislature to establish and maintain public education, not private or parochial education (Leeper, Slip Op. At 10);"
At the local level, you do have some say. You can privately educate your child. You can home educate your child. But, you cannot say Texas lacks the authority to educate.
"It might interest you to know that from a standpoint of pretty much every other democratic country in the world, the USA's main parties are either right wing or extreme right wing. Progressives are merely moderate right wing."
I keep seeing this. Why is this relevant? Look at the pool you describe. One nation's education system (Germany) is specifically designed to create State-serving citizens. A family successfully received political asylum because they wanted to have more choice in education. Another (Norway or Sweden) removed a child from a plane as the parents were trying to move that child out of the country because of educational choice (IIRC the child has dual citizenship).
Several years ago, there was a/. article about a boy who broke DRM protection. His democratic, European country (I can't remember which) tried him. He was found innocent because the elements of the law weren't on point. He was tried a second time under a different law and again found innocent. The nation changed its law, and he faced being tried a third time. He and his father fled the country before charges could be filed.
You have another country where a judge says Sharia law is just as good as theirs, paving the way for a complete replacement of one legal system for another.
The U.S. broke ties over 200 years ago and charted its own path---a representative, limited government. European nations eventually followed to a certain extent---a representative government. At no time has a European country embraced limited government. The difference is key, because a limited government implies the people are sovereign and delegate authority to government. Rights exist despite, not because of, government. Many democratic European countries assert sovereignty over the citizen; as I indicated above.
. . . the government has no jurisdiction over (and therefore cannot interfere in) gay marriage, abortion, individual educational materials . . .;
So, let's pick these apart for a moment.
Gay Marriage. When you say Gay Marriage, what are you referring to? Civil marriage or common law marriage? Civil, right? A gay couple is asking the government to grant them a license recognizing their relationship. Do they have a right to civil marriage? By virtue of requiring a license, we are not talking a right, but a privilege. The government has no interest in common law marriage, straight or otherwise. So, if a gay couple wants to have a common-law marriage, they may just as much as a straight couple.
Abortion. The Declaration of Independence cites three unalienable rights---something that exists despite any government action. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Declaration then states that a government that represses those rights loses its authority to govern---the reason why they wrote the Declaration was to assert Britain had done just that, which justified revolution.
Life is the first right. We all have the right to be alive. The government cannot execute without due process of law. If I kill another I must be judged by my peers to confirm my homicide was justified (I was defending my right to live); or be a murderer. I don't have the right to take another's life just because it suits my convenience.
Abortion is predominately committed out of convenience. In the US since Roe, 37 million abortions had been committed, per Wikipedia; the population of California is 37 million. Per another source, there were 121 million live births in the US in the same period (1973--2005). In other words, 24 percent of all pregnancies (158 million) in the US are terminated. That number is too high to state that the mother's life is in jeopardy.
Individual Educational Materials. You said, "the government has no jurisdiction over . . . individual educational materials. . . . " If this is true, then government has no authority to educate. That's very reactionary. Many home schoolers believe this.
So, your position essentially resonnates with the Conservatives.
These "Conservatives" want a large oppressive government . ..
I'm not sure what you've heard about Conservatism, but those on the left typically demand larger government, as evidenced by recent Health Care legisation, the Welfare State, bail outs, etc. I would submit that the average Conservative would want to slash the size of Federal Government in half.
One thing I find interesting is that the Federal Government's jurisdiction shrank with the frontier. I mean, the Federal Government had authority over huge amounts of territory that was later ceded to states (by making new states). As it's territory shrank, its interest in expanding into areas of traditional state authority (e.g. education, welfare, etc.) grew.
"focus on just the facts of history and their documentable consequences. To enforce some objective standard of what constitutes a fact, require documented citations to primary historical sources for all parts of the book asserting facts - preferably citations with links to the source material."
There is a problem with your suggestion. Which facts of history are we going to discuss? You can't teach children all facts. You have to pick which ones. If you only have time to discuss three major historical figures of the 20th Century, which three do you pick?
Which documentable consequences? What criteria makes a consequence notable enough to require the facts?
You give me a room of experts, and I'll give you an example of some of the most subjective objectivity I've ever seen.
Having watched the TX issue closely, one thing I noticed was the school board focused on was which historical figures should be involved. They asserted there were too many leftist historical figures (by US standards, this is a US issue, not a global one), and substituted a few for right-wingers. So, they balanced the scale.
I have a history book written in the 1920s in my library. How about we teach all history discussed in that textbook just as it is written in that text book?
"The founding father's never really agreed on anything."
They agreed on one thing. The Federalists praised the Constitution and said it would be interpreted as law to our benefit. The Anti-Federalists bitched about the Constitution and said it would be interpreted as law to our detriment. They agreed that the Constitution was law.
The problem is the Supreme Court over the past 50 years has had a nasty habit of exceeding their authority under the Constitution and involved themselves in policy making. They use foreign law and treaties not ratified by the Senate in making decisions. Over the past 70-odd years courts have found more creative ways to interpret the Constitution as a Living Document.
Try this. The Constitution asserts ours should be a Republican (i.e., representative) form of government. Under a Living Constitution, they could easily assert that their opinion is "representative" and that elections are unconstitutional.
"We've been going at this for over two centuries, and we're still debating this? It's settled. It's done. It is just and correct. Leave it the hell alone. (I know I am mostly preaching to the choir here; it is just a mini-rant directed at the "conservatives" in Texas rehashing this stupidity)."
Actually, we've only been going at this since the 1960s, when the Supreme Court banned prayer in school.
"Sorry, but prayer led by state paid employees in a state-funded institution i.e. public school is obviously establishment of a state religion."
You obviously don't know what an established state religion is. Virginia had one at the time the Constitution was ratified. Virginia churches received money from the government...Virginians were taxed by the state with a portion going to the churches. A Virginian Quaker could not opt-out of that tax because he did not worship in the Anglican churches.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are two examples of nations with established state religions. Try carrying a package of Bibles, or pictures of Mohammad naked on a skateboard. You are prohibited from exercising your religious choice in those countries.
George Washington, one of those "Founding Fathers" we here so much about, did not have a "keep that church away from government" attitude so often attributed. He routinely asked Congress during the Revolutionary War for more chaplains. He asked for chaplains of different denominations so the soldiers weren't forced to listen to just one denomination. He insisted that his officers attend church regularly and admonished those who did not. His attitude and behavior did not stop when he became President. In fact, historians stated he was more vocal in public life about religion than he was in his private writings.
You were taught that the Founding Fathers wanted religion separated from government. You were taught that religion should have minimal involvement with society at large. Where did you learn this? You learned it at school; probably a public one.
Another poster commented that the Conservative regions of the country have more children born to teen mothers. "Correlation is not causation," right? What other factors contribute? Why not focus on the most outspoken groups, Evangelical Christian, and see what their stats are like in isolation?
"...In fact, by most of the world's recognition they were at best 'mild conservatives'..."
Sorry, most of the world subjected to some form of totalitarian or otherwise non-representative government. By world, you meant "educated Europeans," right?
"Or are you seriously saying that the balance should occasionally swing to people who believe in politicising the education syllabus and infusing it with religion?"
I am saying "the current curriculum is already politicized, and is already infused with a view of religion; so it should be no surprise to you when the balance tips the other direction." Don't forget there's a segment of the U.S. that has been aghast at how the country has swung leftward.
By its very nature history is political, "the winners write history" and all that. There have been wars fought over political ideologies labeled as religions (e.g. the Reformation, which advocated a decentralization of power).
Why do we think that because they are professors and scholars that they are objective and impartial? They are not, they are human and will naturally bias their writings with their own perspective. That's natural. To deny this is unhealthy.
A few years ago, it was said that California, because of its large student population, charted the course of public education. Apparently California's budget woes have moved it to second place.
So, there is a complaint that Texas is directing the course of textbooks? Somebody will be charting the course, regardless. So, are we going to complain only when more conservative forces are carrying sway? If so, are we not revealing that we only like it when we are in control?
The nature of the United States is that there are primarily two opposing political forces vying for control. Their routine swing should be preferred to having the balanced tipped all to one side.
"If they can prove he paid for it, he's [screwed]."
Fortunately, he did not mention how much he paid for it, or whether he paid for it, or anything like that. Wait. He did. He's screwed.
Receiving stolen property is prohibited under California Penal Code 496 PC. If you knowingly
* buy,
* sell,
* receive,
* conceal, or
* withhold stolen property, you may be convicted of this charge.
In this case, we must show whether 1) the property was stolen, 2) whether the accused had possession of the property and 3) knew or suspected it was stolen.W
First, the property was lost. However, in California one must make reasonable attempts to find the true owner. Without getting into the details, the finder was not reasonable in California. So, it was probably "stolen."
Second, we know the accused had the property because he took pictures and published a blow-by-blow analysis of the property.
Third, he knew a phone was lost. The question does not revolve around whether he paid, but whether he knew it was "stolen." From what I've heard, he probably knew. If so, then he's probably guilty. Of course, I don't have all the facts, nor am I a lawyer.
"Journalists have *more* rights than the rest of us."
No, Journalists do not have more rights. Your rights exist because you are a human being. Rights are inalienable, blah, blah, blah. Journalists are not "more human" than you. The First Amendment does not designate the occupation of the individual.
Journalists obtained certain privileges from the Government by virtue of their occupation. Conversely, if what journalists have are true "rights," then we all are entitled to those rights; and we are deprived those rights by our Government. We don't get rights from Government.
The two choices are scope-based releases or time-based releases. Scope-based releases allow for long delays, reduced confidence and morale. Time-based releases have been shown to be an effective tool in improving the quality and morale of large, complex open-source software.
I think his wife's argument is that the third party lacks police powers. Therefore, this party lacks the authority to execute a ticket for an alleged moving violation. Even if this party contracted to issue tickets, they would lack the legal authority.
If anybody without police authority could issue a ticket for a moving violation, or for a parking violation, then I could sit at a street corner with a video camera and rake in the money.
Fortunately, "Heaven" is not a wee bright light that occurs the instant before you die. Read through the Bible, you'll note that God exists outside his Creation. So, you're not going to be able to measure him or prove him by scientific observation.
Furthermore, "[w]e cannot determine the character or nature of a system within itself. Efforts to do so will only generate confusion and disorder." John Boyd
This is what we call a Scot's Verdict. It's not that the Commons absolved them of wrong doing. It's just "Not proven."
"The result is the modern perception that the 'not proven' verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary."
It depends on what your goal is. Who here remembers what it was like when you had paper memos, routing forms, etc.? We accomplish so much business via email now, and other network mechanisms. How much drafting (e.g. architectural) paper was lost 30 years ago verse today.
A consequence of this is that MPG exaggerates the benefit of highly fuel-efficient vehicles. 2752 MPG sounds like a lot. But switching from a 25 MPG vehicle to a 50 MPG vehicle saves you more gas than switching from a 50 MPG vehicle to a 2752 MPG vehicle. To cover a distance of 50 miles, the 25 MPG vehicle would consume 2 gallons. The 50 MPG vehicle would consume 1 gallon, for a savings of 1 gallon. The 2752 MPG vehicle would consume 0.018 gallons, for a savings of 0.982 gallons. This is less improvement than the switch from 25 MPG to 50 MPG. Because MPG is inverted, a 10 MPG improvement on a 25 MPG vehicle saves a lot more fuel than a 10 MPG improvement on a 2000 MPG vehicle.
But, you're missing a big point, methinks, in your shell game. Switching from 25 MPG to 50 MPG incurs a fuels savings of 1 gal. Switching from a 25 MPG car to the 2752 MPG car saves 1.98 gallons. Let's use a slightly different unit of measure. A 25 MPG car consumes 32 cups of fuel. A 2752 MPG vehicle consumes 1/3d of a cup of fuel. I use more butter to make a batch of cookies than this car would to drive 50 miles.
Or to look at this in terms of cost. The average price per gallon in the US is USD 2.65. The 25 MPG car would spend USD 5.30. The 50 MPG car would spend USD 2.65. The 2752 MPG car would spend a nickel. Or in "Cents per Mile" (CPM), the 25 MPG is 10 CPM, the 50 MPG is 5 CPM, and the 2752 MPG care is 1 cent per ten miles.
"U.S. industry is loathe to spend money on any R&D that does not have an immediate return on investment (read:shareholder gains)."
That's why there's never been any innovation. The entire green industry resulted from a little R&D with immediate returns on investment, right? The pharmaceutical industry spends many years trying to find a drug that will hit pay dirt. So, you're perspective is a little naive.
I find your lack of faith in private industry disturbing.
"[J]ust imagine if the roads were done by private companies, there might be more that are very well maintained but something like the interstate highway system would be near impossible to create because you'd be so hard pressed to get the companies to actually cooperate in any reasonable manner."
We don't have to imagine. The U.S. railroads were an amalgam of private companies when the industry first emerged in the 19th Century. Early paved roads were also done by private companies as well.
I'll stick with a doctor who isn't an agent of the government, thanks.
Hmm. No public schools, no govt scholarships, doesn't take medicare patients, no medical license, no business license, doesn't cooperate with the CDC,... That leaves us with what, one master herbalist in Berkley?
Wow! Like your reply doesn't even approach the GPP, and you got modded up. So, I guess I'll get modded down for what I'm about to say
Being an agent of the government means "a representative or official of a government or administrative department of a government." We're talking somebody who is effectively controlled by the government such that they have an implicit employer/employee relationship.
One does not need to eschew the CDC to avoid being a government agent. Licensing is possible without being a government employee; in fact when is a government employee required to obtain a business license to be a government employee? And, if attendance at a public school (including public post-secondary) makes one a government employee, then a clear majority of our nation is actually not private sector but public.
FWIW, Business and Medical licensing is a product of State Governments. Public education is a product of Statue Governments. Under the U.S. Constitution, there is no enumerated power empowering the Federal Government to be involved in either Education or Medicine. Therefore, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, the authority falls to the individual States. Massachusetts has public health-care, which is acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. But, the Federal Government usurping their authority is not.
I believe the GPP was complaining that the Federal Government needs to keep its nose out of the medical field.
Slashdot Mirror
"Actually the superior educational system in Germany has helped them a lot. They are the number one exporter of manufactured goods. And they're able to make all these superior manufactured goods despite the fact that they are among the most labor-friendly societies in the world"
What makes it superior? Germany is #1 in exports? It exports more than China? According to Wikipedia (the source of all true knowledge), Germany is not #1 globally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports) It is #2 after China. And, this is based on 2009 numbers, when the U.S. manufacturing sector was hard hit by depression. Our manufacturing states have greater than 25% unemployment. Oddly enough, unemployment is greater were labor laws are pro-union.
What you wrote above suggests that one requires a good education to be an assembly line worker. In fact, you don't have to have a good education. You don't even have to be literate.
"The problem here is that decisions are being made by a group of people with an agenda to pass that completely goes against our countries constitution. Even worse, they're trying to educate our future children concepts that are polar opposites of what our country was founded upon."
Have you reviewed the changes the Texas School Board adopted? Are you a Texan?
You state this group has an "agenda...that completely goes against our countries(sic) constitution(sic)". The "agenda" was to balance the educational diet of the student.
What happened here? Texas reviews its curricula periodically (every 10 years). They received an "expert's recommendation" on a history curriculum that they red-lined. Have we compared that expert's recommendation to the (then) current Texas history curriculum? We are not hearing that they are taking the current curriculum and changing it, but that they are adjusting a recommendation.
Have you reviewed the original recommendation? Have you reviewed the redlines? Or, are you just parroting what others are telling you? Have you compared this year's review with review of the same curriculum the past time? The time before that? How do you know the have an agenda that would completely destroy our Constitution?
Hell, this isn't even the material. This is the REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT.
You don't. You are upset because you've been told 1) the Constitution bars religion from society and government and 2) that Texas is trying to let churches run the school by reengineering history.
"I'm a conservative. My real problem with this is that a strong central government (Texas) is making decisions that should be made at the local level."
Please review the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The question is whether the States respectively have the authority to educate. State run Public Education was rare when the Constitution was ratified, but it did exist. Therefore, States do have the authority to educate.
Do you question whether a state can set educational standards?
The State of Texas _funds_ public education (http://www.texasbudgetsource.com/education) in accordance with the Constitution, so Texas asserts its authority in managing that education. Its Constitution gives it the authority to educate: "Article 7, section 2 of the Texas Constitution only authorizes the legislature to establish and maintain public education, not private or parochial education (Leeper, Slip Op. At 10);"
http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/Texas.pdf
At the local level, you do have some say. You can privately educate your child. You can home educate your child. But, you cannot say Texas lacks the authority to educate.
"It might interest you to know that from a standpoint of pretty much every other democratic country in the world, the USA's main parties are either right wing or extreme right wing. Progressives are merely moderate right wing."
I keep seeing this. Why is this relevant? Look at the pool you describe. One nation's education system (Germany) is specifically designed to create State-serving citizens. A family successfully received political asylum because they wanted to have more choice in education. Another (Norway or Sweden) removed a child from a plane as the parents were trying to move that child out of the country because of educational choice (IIRC the child has dual citizenship).
Several years ago, there was a /. article about a boy who broke DRM protection. His democratic, European country (I can't remember which) tried him. He was found innocent because the elements of the law weren't on point. He was tried a second time under a different law and again found innocent. The nation changed its law, and he faced being tried a third time. He and his father fled the country before charges could be filed.
You have another country where a judge says Sharia law is just as good as theirs, paving the way for a complete replacement of one legal system for another.
The U.S. broke ties over 200 years ago and charted its own path---a representative, limited government. European nations eventually followed to a certain extent---a representative government. At no time has a European country embraced limited government. The difference is key, because a limited government implies the people are sovereign and delegate authority to government. Rights exist despite, not because of, government. Many democratic European countries assert sovereignty over the citizen; as I indicated above.
Why should we compare ourselves?
So, let's pick these apart for a moment.
Gay Marriage. When you say Gay Marriage, what are you referring to? Civil marriage or common law marriage? Civil, right? A gay couple is asking the government to grant them a license recognizing their relationship. Do they have a right to civil marriage? By virtue of requiring a license, we are not talking a right, but a privilege. The government has no interest in common law marriage, straight or otherwise. So, if a gay couple wants to have a common-law marriage, they may just as much as a straight couple.
Abortion. The Declaration of Independence cites three unalienable rights---something that exists despite any government action. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Declaration then states that a government that represses those rights loses its authority to govern---the reason why they wrote the Declaration was to assert Britain had done just that, which justified revolution.
Life is the first right. We all have the right to be alive. The government cannot execute without due process of law. If I kill another I must be judged by my peers to confirm my homicide was justified (I was defending my right to live); or be a murderer. I don't have the right to take another's life just because it suits my convenience.
Abortion is predominately committed out of convenience. In the US since Roe, 37 million abortions had been committed, per Wikipedia; the population of California is 37 million. Per another source, there were 121 million live births in the US in the same period (1973--2005). In other words, 24 percent of all pregnancies (158 million) in the US are terminated. That number is too high to state that the mother's life is in jeopardy.
Individual Educational Materials. You said, "the government has no jurisdiction over . . . individual educational materials. . . . " If this is true, then government has no authority to educate. That's very reactionary. Many home schoolers believe this.
So, your position essentially resonnates with the Conservatives.
I'm not sure what you've heard about Conservatism, but those on the left typically demand larger government, as evidenced by recent Health Care legisation, the Welfare State, bail outs, etc. I would submit that the average Conservative would want to slash the size of Federal Government in half.
One thing I find interesting is that the Federal Government's jurisdiction shrank with the frontier. I mean, the Federal Government had authority over huge amounts of territory that was later ceded to states (by making new states). As it's territory shrank, its interest in expanding into areas of traditional state authority (e.g. education, welfare, etc.) grew.
"focus on just the facts of history and their documentable consequences. To enforce some objective standard of what constitutes a fact, require documented citations to primary historical sources for all parts of the book asserting facts - preferably citations with links to the source material."
There is a problem with your suggestion. Which facts of history are we going to discuss? You can't teach children all facts. You have to pick which ones. If you only have time to discuss three major historical figures of the 20th Century, which three do you pick?
Which documentable consequences? What criteria makes a consequence notable enough to require the facts?
You give me a room of experts, and I'll give you an example of some of the most subjective objectivity I've ever seen.
Having watched the TX issue closely, one thing I noticed was the school board focused on was which historical figures should be involved. They asserted there were too many leftist historical figures (by US standards, this is a US issue, not a global one), and substituted a few for right-wingers. So, they balanced the scale.
I have a history book written in the 1920s in my library. How about we teach all history discussed in that textbook just as it is written in that text book?
"The founding father's never really agreed on anything."
They agreed on one thing. The Federalists praised the Constitution and said it would be interpreted as law to our benefit. The Anti-Federalists bitched about the Constitution and said it would be interpreted as law to our detriment. They agreed that the Constitution was law.
The problem is the Supreme Court over the past 50 years has had a nasty habit of exceeding their authority under the Constitution and involved themselves in policy making. They use foreign law and treaties not ratified by the Senate in making decisions. Over the past 70-odd years courts have found more creative ways to interpret the Constitution as a Living Document.
Try this. The Constitution asserts ours should be a Republican (i.e., representative) form of government. Under a Living Constitution, they could easily assert that their opinion is "representative" and that elections are unconstitutional.
"We've been going at this for over two centuries, and we're still debating this? It's settled. It's done. It is just and correct. Leave it the hell alone. (I know I am mostly preaching to the choir here; it is just a mini-rant directed at the "conservatives" in Texas rehashing this stupidity)."
Actually, we've only been going at this since the 1960s, when the Supreme Court banned prayer in school.
"Sorry, but prayer led by state paid employees in a state-funded institution i.e. public school is obviously establishment of a state religion."
You obviously don't know what an established state religion is. Virginia had one at the time the Constitution was ratified. Virginia churches received money from the government...Virginians were taxed by the state with a portion going to the churches. A Virginian Quaker could not opt-out of that tax because he did not worship in the Anglican churches.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are two examples of nations with established state religions. Try carrying a package of Bibles, or pictures of Mohammad naked on a skateboard. You are prohibited from exercising your religious choice in those countries.
George Washington, one of those "Founding Fathers" we here so much about, did not have a "keep that church away from government" attitude so often attributed. He routinely asked Congress during the Revolutionary War for more chaplains. He asked for chaplains of different denominations so the soldiers weren't forced to listen to just one denomination. He insisted that his officers attend church regularly and admonished those who did not. His attitude and behavior did not stop when he became President. In fact, historians stated he was more vocal in public life about religion than he was in his private writings.
You were taught that the Founding Fathers wanted religion separated from government. You were taught that religion should have minimal involvement with society at large. Where did you learn this? You learned it at school; probably a public one.
Another poster commented that the Conservative regions of the country have more children born to teen mothers. "Correlation is not causation," right? What other factors contribute? Why not focus on the most outspoken groups, Evangelical Christian, and see what their stats are like in isolation?
"...In fact, by most of the world's recognition they were at best 'mild conservatives'..."
Sorry, most of the world subjected to some form of totalitarian or otherwise non-representative government. By world, you meant "educated Europeans," right?
"Or are you seriously saying that the balance should occasionally swing to people who believe in politicising the education syllabus and infusing it with religion?"
I am saying "the current curriculum is already politicized, and is already infused with a view of religion; so it should be no surprise to you when the balance tips the other direction." Don't forget there's a segment of the U.S. that has been aghast at how the country has swung leftward.
By its very nature history is political, "the winners write history" and all that. There have been wars fought over political ideologies labeled as religions (e.g. the Reformation, which advocated a decentralization of power).
Why do we think that because they are professors and scholars that they are objective and impartial? They are not, they are human and will naturally bias their writings with their own perspective. That's natural. To deny this is unhealthy.
A few years ago, it was said that California, because of its large student population, charted the course of public education. Apparently California's budget woes have moved it to second place.
So, there is a complaint that Texas is directing the course of textbooks? Somebody will be charting the course, regardless. So, are we going to complain only when more conservative forces are carrying sway? If so, are we not revealing that we only like it when we are in control?
The nature of the United States is that there are primarily two opposing political forces vying for control. Their routine swing should be preferred to having the balanced tipped all to one side.
"If they can prove he paid for it, he's [screwed]."
Fortunately, he did not mention how much he paid for it, or whether he paid for it, or anything like that. Wait. He did. He's screwed.
Receiving stolen property is prohibited under California Penal Code 496 PC. If you knowingly
* buy,
* sell,
* receive,
* conceal, or
* withhold
stolen property, you may be convicted of this charge.
In this case, we must show whether 1) the property was stolen, 2) whether the accused had possession of the property and 3) knew or suspected it was stolen.W
First, the property was lost. However, in California one must make reasonable attempts to find the true owner. Without getting into the details, the finder was not reasonable in California. So, it was probably "stolen."
Second, we know the accused had the property because he took pictures and published a blow-by-blow analysis of the property.
Third, he knew a phone was lost. The question does not revolve around whether he paid, but whether he knew it was "stolen." From what I've heard, he probably knew. If so, then he's probably guilty. Of course, I don't have all the facts, nor am I a lawyer.
"Journalists have *more* rights than the rest of us."
No, Journalists do not have more rights. Your rights exist because you are a human being. Rights are inalienable, blah, blah, blah. Journalists are not "more human" than you. The First Amendment does not designate the occupation of the individual.
Journalists obtained certain privileges from the Government by virtue of their occupation. Conversely, if what journalists have are true "rights," then we all are entitled to those rights; and we are deprived those rights by our Government. We don't get rights from Government.
The two choices are scope-based releases or time-based releases. Scope-based releases allow for long delays, reduced confidence and morale. Time-based releases have been shown to be an effective tool in improving the quality and morale of large, complex open-source software.
But, don't take my word for it.
http://www.cyrius.com/publications/
"If you were fighting an illegal ticket,"
I think his wife's argument is that the third party lacks police powers. Therefore, this party lacks the authority to execute a ticket for an alleged moving violation. Even if this party contracted to issue tickets, they would lack the legal authority.
If anybody without police authority could issue a ticket for a moving violation, or for a parking violation, then I could sit at a street corner with a video camera and rake in the money.
Fortunately, "Heaven" is not a wee bright light that occurs the instant before you die. Read through the Bible, you'll note that God exists outside his Creation. So, you're not going to be able to measure him or prove him by scientific observation.
Furthermore, "[w]e cannot determine the character or nature of a system within itself. Efforts to do so will only generate confusion and disorder." John Boyd
This is what we call a Scot's Verdict. It's not that the Commons absolved them of wrong doing. It's just "Not proven."
"The result is the modern perception that the 'not proven' verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
It depends on what your goal is. Who here remembers what it was like when you had paper memos, routing forms, etc.? We accomplish so much business via email now, and other network mechanisms. How much drafting (e.g. architectural) paper was lost 30 years ago verse today.
While we are not paper-free, we are paper-less.
But, you're missing a big point, methinks, in your shell game. Switching from 25 MPG to 50 MPG incurs a fuels savings of 1 gal. Switching from a 25 MPG car to the 2752 MPG car saves 1.98 gallons. Let's use a slightly different unit of measure. A 25 MPG car consumes 32 cups of fuel. A 2752 MPG vehicle consumes 1/3d of a cup of fuel. I use more butter to make a batch of cookies than this car would to drive 50 miles.
Or to look at this in terms of cost. The average price per gallon in the US is USD 2.65. The 25 MPG car would spend USD 5.30. The 50 MPG car would spend USD 2.65. The 2752 MPG car would spend a nickel. Or in "Cents per Mile" (CPM), the 25 MPG is 10 CPM, the 50 MPG is 5 CPM, and the 2752 MPG care is 1 cent per ten miles.
"U.S. industry is loathe to spend money on any R&D that does not have an immediate return on investment (read:shareholder gains)."
That's why there's never been any innovation. The entire green industry resulted from a little R&D with immediate returns on investment, right? The pharmaceutical industry spends many years trying to find a drug that will hit pay dirt. So, you're perspective is a little naive.
I find your lack of faith in private industry disturbing.
"[J]ust imagine if the roads were done by private companies, there might be more that are very well maintained but something like the interstate highway system would be near impossible to create because you'd be so hard pressed to get the companies to actually cooperate in any reasonable manner."
We don't have to imagine. The U.S. railroads were an amalgam of private companies when the industry first emerged in the 19th Century. Early paved roads were also done by private companies as well.
Wow! Like your reply doesn't even approach the GPP, and you got modded up. So, I guess I'll get modded down for what I'm about to say
Being an agent of the government means "a representative or official of a government or administrative department of a government." We're talking somebody who is effectively controlled by the government such that they have an implicit employer/employee relationship.
One does not need to eschew the CDC to avoid being a government agent. Licensing is possible without being a government employee; in fact when is a government employee required to obtain a business license to be a government employee? And, if attendance at a public school (including public post-secondary) makes one a government employee, then a clear majority of our nation is actually not private sector but public.
FWIW, Business and Medical licensing is a product of State Governments. Public education is a product of Statue Governments. Under the U.S. Constitution, there is no enumerated power empowering the Federal Government to be involved in either Education or Medicine. Therefore, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, the authority falls to the individual States. Massachusetts has public health-care, which is acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. But, the Federal Government usurping their authority is not.
I believe the GPP was complaining that the Federal Government needs to keep its nose out of the medical field.
This is Google's response to both Bing and KGB.
But, does this mean the age of the DotCom Superbowl Commercial is back?
And, what about the political advertisements? We had one about debt (we pay .5 billion per day, mostly to foreign investors) and one on pro-choice.
"That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images."
Correction, "[It would seem that Obama] is overstepping [his] authority with these images."
Or, more correctly,
"Obama is violating U.S. Law regarding these images."