It may be wise for the US to implement a regulation that politicians have a spending limit to avoid building up huge deficits
Please tell me the section of the United States Constitution that would allow for a 'regulation' that would limit spending? I suppose you could implement it in the House and/or Senate rules but I don't think that would prove to be very effective (they can waive and/or change their rules at will).
The only way you could do it would be through a Constitutional Amendment and that's a pretty daunting task.
No nation ever goes to war for purely altruistic motives. If they did maybe some of the neutral countries in Europe would have coughed up some backbone and fought against aggression. I'm specifically thinking of Sweden sitting by while Finland was fighting for survival in the Winter War though the Swiss also come to mind.
Point being, that whatever the underlying motives were I'd like to think that the good of our actions have outweighed the bad. FDR did everything within his power to end the period of colonialism and set the stage for the United Nations. His wife was one of the leading figures in getting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed.
On balance do you think that the United States just maybe had some sort of positive contribution to world history?
This is exactly why democracy and freedom don't always work well in practice
I agree. The problem with every other system is that for every George Washington or Marcus Aurelius you wind up with someone like Joseph Stalin or Caligula.
I'll take the stupidity of the whole over the tyranny of one any day of the week.
I wouldn't give him crap for calling it a "series of tubes" but he made a remark about how his staff had sent him "an internet" that was delayed for some reason.
If your mental facilities have deteriorated to the point that you don't know what the word "e-mail" means then I really have to question why you are one of 100 people who gets to confirm lifetime Federal appointments and decide trivial stuff like whether or not the nation goes to war.....
And Stevens, being a long time incombant, is running virtually unopposed on the republican front.
How long is it going to stay that way? This might just be the best thing that could have happened to the GOP -- if Stevens loses a primary and the Democrat has to run against somebody who isn't under investigation for corruption can he still win in that heavily Republican state?
That pattern can be explained in a single word: gerrymandering.
Actually there is a bit more to it than that. Your own Congressman is probably pretty good at delivering "economic development" to his district. The other 434 assholes are just wasting our tax dollars on "pork".
Ever wonder why Congress as a whole gets shitty approval ratings yet people usually have good things to say about their own Rep?
watching hollywood though you might start to assume the blitz was in new york...
Eh, he was a bit wrong on the blitz (the blitz happened before lend-lease and meaningful amounts of American aid) but he does have a point that Europeans seem to have forgotten about lend-lease and the months of American involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic before we were officially involved in the war.
Eh, there are actually a few good ones out there. My Congressman was against it from the start. I actually got a refund of my contributions to Obama for America after his flip-flop on FISA. Almost $500. I donated $250 to the ACLU, $150 to the EFF and the remainder to my Congressman (Maurice Hinchey) who voted against it and is facing a challenger this year.
Both of my Senators (Clinton and Schumer) also voted against it but they don't really need my money to get re-elected in this state. Part me of wonders if Hillary would have voted the same way if she had managed to beat Obama but we'll never know the answer to that one will we? At least she made the right choice this time around.....
suicide missions occur in all wars and all religions, you yourselves send your spies out on missions with arsenic pills in their pockets, the Japanese fought you with suicide pilots - and they were of two religions, neither of which promised any reward for it
There's a bit of a difference between the operative who takes a suicide pill with him to avoid capture and the kamikaze pilot or suicide bomber that sets out knowing he will die. I don't think you'll find many examples in Western Civilization of purposeful suicide missions. Heck, one of our operatives who was shot down during the Cold War declined to take his suicide pill.
and they were of two religions, neither of which promised any reward for it
Do you know what kamikaze translates as? It literally means "god wind" (though commonly translated as "divine wind"). The kamikaze pilots were heavily influenced by both their Shinto beliefs and cultural influences. I don't think you can dismiss the influence of religion as easily as you would like to in this instance.
The root was talking about K-12, and so was I, so there goes your Cornell remark.
<sarcasm>What, Cornell doesn't do K-12?</sarcasm>
(Sorry, I guess I forgot those tags in my original remark)
Just pointing out that privatizing education solves nothing
I never said it did. I just didn't want you pretend that the current system is actually equal or fair. I grew up in the suburbs. On that sole basis alone I had a much better shot than the kid growing up in the inner city or rural backwater. Our school district was rarely short of anything (be it supplies, textbooks, athletic equipment or good teachers) and had a stable community to back it up.
But we have to admit that it does one thing right: it guarantees that everyone's education is more or less the same. It is inferior, to put it lightly, but it is inferior for everyone
That's where I would still disagree with you. Over 70% of my senior year went on to college. Some 25% to Ivy League Intuitions. Meanwhile my cousins grew up out in the rural sticks -- over half of their senior year wound up as teenage parents. The system isn't "inferior for everyone". Worked just fine for me. It's failing miserably in large parts of the country though.
However, without the government program they would still go hungry, to work, as unskilled laborers.
Very few people are advocating for the end of the public education system. Even most Republicans are not going that far. We just need sane reform and a system that actually works. Throwing more money (boilerplate Democratic solution) at it is not really going to solve anything -- it hasn't yet and we've been trying it for decades. On the other hand, taking away money from districts that are failing (No Child Left Behind) is not going to fix things either.
you can teach your kid *anything* you want to; just dont be surprised when he ends up screwed up 'cause he messed with someone who had a real education.
Hey I don't dispute that. Personally I would never try and educate my own kids as I'm hardly qualified to do so. I'll have a hand in the process and will make sure that my kids learn about subjects I feel are currently neglected by our educational system (Civics being the first that comes to mind) but by and large I'll leave it to the professionals.
My point was that it's ultimately up to the parents to raise their kids as they see fit. That includes the option of home schooling them for whatever reason -- they think they can do a better job, religious or cultural considerations, etc, etc. The GP seemed to imply that some people shouldn't be allowed to do this and he said it in the most condescending manner possible.
What makes you think people at the bottom of the population are anywhere near qualified to teach their kids? Either from a time-perspective, education-perspective, inclination-perspective or shudder, a preparedness-perspective?
I don't think they are qualified. I just get nervous when the Government starts trying to take that choice away from people. The GP's comment about the educational system "homogenizing" society and how that could be a "good thing" struck me close to the bone. A large part of my ethic background is Native American. Compulsory education was often used to destroy Native American culture, language and tradition.
Looking back on that history I'm somewhat hesitant to embrace someone who rails against home schooling because of "bible schooling". His entire post had way too much of a "We know what's better for you" tone, IMHO.
Sports is a great example of how the focus in schools has been taken off of education.
I'll probably have to turn in my nerd card for suggesting this but if you've bothered to look at the obesity rate in this country you could probably make a pretty compelling argument for why physical education in this country needs to be expanded.
We will immediately get several tiers of education, ranked according to price
We already have that though. How many people do you know that picked the location of their home based on the school district it was in? Do you think that everybody has the means to do that? I don't think gutting the public school system is the way to go but don't pretend that there aren't already socio-economic inequalities in the system.
The only way to educate everyone is to give everyone the same education.
Well, a classic education is no longer being taught. Where's the Socratic logic class in High School? Where's Latin? Why arent Plato's works discussed? Where are the Geometers? What about teaching Leibniz calculus to high schoolers? Even elementary students know what acceleration is.
What ever happened to civics class? It depresses me that most people don't understand basic concepts about our political system.
The amount of arrogance and condescension in your post is truly astonishing. I don't know where your political affiliations lie but you just managed to display nearly every single negative stereotype about Liberals. And before anybody shoots the messenger you should know that I'm a liberal Democrat.
Have you actually spoken to the people in the lower 50% of our population?
So are you saying that the people who have a lower socio-economic status than you or I shouldn't be allowed to home school their children?
it's easy to forget that many people exist that do not car about education in the least
Says the person who couldn't be bothered to proofread his post for spelling mistakes and/or typos. Sorry, I had to dig you for this one;)
Not to mention the people who turn home schooling into bible schooling. Not that it's bad unless they crack down on critical thinking or don't teach evolution at all or something, but you know some people will do that.
So what? Shouldn't parents have the right to teach their kids whatever they want? Why is it any business of the Government what I choose to teach to my kids? Personally I don't want my kid taught creationism in biology class (that's what theology class is for) but I also don't want the Government telling me how to raise him either.
And you want those people to home school their kids?
You actually used the term "those people"? If I was referring to a minority group as "those people" I'd probably be called a racist. Think of the language you are using and how it might read.
Our education system does homogenize our society, but for the poor/unfortunate that is usually a good thing.
Do you realize how arrogant that statement sounds?
Any one of the other fields that you can obtain employment in for many times more the salary of the typical public school teacher? Particularly in states like New York that require a Masters Degree to obtain/keep a teaching license?
I certainly feel disillusioned with the whole process before having even gotten involved with it
I'm more disillusioned after getting involved in it but I still think it's for the greater good in the end. You'll never change everything -- but if you can manage to make a small impact somewhere (which is much easier to do on a local level) then you've done some good.
As for living in China, it might not be as nice as out here in the west, but compared to certain places in Africa, and North Korea, it's probably like living in Disneyland
Until you criticize the communist Government that is.... Granted, I'd take China over North Korea any day but let's not pretend that being better than North Korea is something to brag about.
I also had a friend go over to Saudi Arabia recently for a few months, and he liked it - but he was out there working for an oil company, so perhaps that makes all the difference.
Add a leading 's' to the words that I highlighted and then tell me if your friend would have had the same experience. Saudi Arabia == sexual apartheid. I'm hard pressed to think of a worse place on this planet to be female.
But the method of policing kiddie porn here is essentially the same as the method of policing speech within the Chinese borders: ISPs and hosting services take down content, and the police occasionally raid higher priority figures.
Do you know a different way to police content on the internet?
Slashdot Mirror
It may be wise for the US to implement a regulation that politicians have a spending limit to avoid building up huge deficits
Please tell me the section of the United States Constitution that would allow for a 'regulation' that would limit spending? I suppose you could implement it in the House and/or Senate rules but I don't think that would prove to be very effective (they can waive and/or change their rules at will).
The only way you could do it would be through a Constitutional Amendment and that's a pretty daunting task.
No nation ever goes to war for purely altruistic motives. If they did maybe some of the neutral countries in Europe would have coughed up some backbone and fought against aggression. I'm specifically thinking of Sweden sitting by while Finland was fighting for survival in the Winter War though the Swiss also come to mind.
Point being, that whatever the underlying motives were I'd like to think that the good of our actions have outweighed the bad. FDR did everything within his power to end the period of colonialism and set the stage for the United Nations. His wife was one of the leading figures in getting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed.
On balance do you think that the United States just maybe had some sort of positive contribution to world history?
This is exactly why democracy and freedom don't always work well in practice
I agree. The problem with every other system is that for every George Washington or Marcus Aurelius you wind up with someone like Joseph Stalin or Caligula.
I'll take the stupidity of the whole over the tyranny of one any day of the week.
I wouldn't give him crap for calling it a "series of tubes" but he made a remark about how his staff had sent him "an internet" that was delayed for some reason.
If your mental facilities have deteriorated to the point that you don't know what the word "e-mail" means then I really have to question why you are one of 100 people who gets to confirm lifetime Federal appointments and decide trivial stuff like whether or not the nation goes to war.....
And Stevens, being a long time incombant, is running virtually unopposed on the republican front.
How long is it going to stay that way? This might just be the best thing that could have happened to the GOP -- if Stevens loses a primary and the Democrat has to run against somebody who isn't under investigation for corruption can he still win in that heavily Republican state?
That pattern can be explained in a single word: gerrymandering.
Actually there is a bit more to it than that. Your own Congressman is probably pretty good at delivering "economic development" to his district. The other 434 assholes are just wasting our tax dollars on "pork".
Ever wonder why Congress as a whole gets shitty approval ratings yet people usually have good things to say about their own Rep?
If he's convicted, there's a good chance he'll lose his Congressional Pension - given that the charges are essentially bribery & corruption.
That might actually mean something if he wasn't older than dirt and already near death ;)
Hopefully Larry Craig can give him some pointers.
1) Tap the foot of the guy in the stall next to you.
2) ???
3) Profit!
Don't see why ya needed Larry Craig to tell ya that ;)
Federal prison is mainly big-time drug users and drug dealers.
State prison is mainly small-time drug users and drug dealers.
What makes one a "big-time drug user" as opposed to a small-time one?
People like Ted Stevens don't go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Eh, regardless of his position or wealth do 84 year olds really go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison for white collar crimes?
watching hollywood though you might start to assume the blitz was in new york...
Eh, he was a bit wrong on the blitz (the blitz happened before lend-lease and meaningful amounts of American aid) but he does have a point that Europeans seem to have forgotten about lend-lease and the months of American involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic before we were officially involved in the war.
and its amazing that he can keep getting elected
Eh, there are actually a few good ones out there. My Congressman was against it from the start. I actually got a refund of my contributions to Obama for America after his flip-flop on FISA. Almost $500. I donated $250 to the ACLU, $150 to the EFF and the remainder to my Congressman (Maurice Hinchey) who voted against it and is facing a challenger this year.
Both of my Senators (Clinton and Schumer) also voted against it but they don't really need my money to get re-elected in this state. Part me of wonders if Hillary would have voted the same way if she had managed to beat Obama but we'll never know the answer to that one will we? At least she made the right choice this time around.....
suicide missions occur in all wars and all religions, you yourselves send your spies out on missions with arsenic pills in their pockets, the Japanese fought you with suicide pilots - and they were of two religions, neither of which promised any reward for it
There's a bit of a difference between the operative who takes a suicide pill with him to avoid capture and the kamikaze pilot or suicide bomber that sets out knowing he will die. I don't think you'll find many examples in Western Civilization of purposeful suicide missions. Heck, one of our operatives who was shot down during the Cold War declined to take his suicide pill.
and they were of two religions, neither of which promised any reward for it
Do you know what kamikaze translates as? It literally means "god wind" (though commonly translated as "divine wind"). The kamikaze pilots were heavily influenced by both their Shinto beliefs and cultural influences. I don't think you can dismiss the influence of religion as easily as you would like to in this instance.
both mainstream parties are firmly pro-corporation and anti-people
Don't the 28 Democrats who voted against it deserve some credit?
The root was talking about K-12, and so was I, so there goes your Cornell remark.
<sarcasm>What, Cornell doesn't do K-12?</sarcasm>
(Sorry, I guess I forgot those tags in my original remark)
Just pointing out that privatizing education solves nothing
I never said it did. I just didn't want you pretend that the current system is actually equal or fair. I grew up in the suburbs. On that sole basis alone I had a much better shot than the kid growing up in the inner city or rural backwater. Our school district was rarely short of anything (be it supplies, textbooks, athletic equipment or good teachers) and had a stable community to back it up.
But we have to admit that it does one thing right: it guarantees that everyone's education is more or less the same. It is inferior, to put it lightly, but it is inferior for everyone
That's where I would still disagree with you. Over 70% of my senior year went on to college. Some 25% to Ivy League Intuitions. Meanwhile my cousins grew up out in the rural sticks -- over half of their senior year wound up as teenage parents. The system isn't "inferior for everyone". Worked just fine for me. It's failing miserably in large parts of the country though.
However, without the government program they would still go hungry, to work, as unskilled laborers.
Very few people are advocating for the end of the public education system. Even most Republicans are not going that far. We just need sane reform and a system that actually works. Throwing more money (boilerplate Democratic solution) at it is not really going to solve anything -- it hasn't yet and we've been trying it for decades. On the other hand, taking away money from districts that are failing (No Child Left Behind) is not going to fix things either.
you can teach your kid *anything* you want to; just dont be surprised when he ends up screwed up 'cause he messed with someone who had a real education.
Hey I don't dispute that. Personally I would never try and educate my own kids as I'm hardly qualified to do so. I'll have a hand in the process and will make sure that my kids learn about subjects I feel are currently neglected by our educational system (Civics being the first that comes to mind) but by and large I'll leave it to the professionals.
My point was that it's ultimately up to the parents to raise their kids as they see fit. That includes the option of home schooling them for whatever reason -- they think they can do a better job, religious or cultural considerations, etc, etc. The GP seemed to imply that some people shouldn't be allowed to do this and he said it in the most condescending manner possible.
What makes you think people at the bottom of the population are anywhere near qualified to teach their kids? Either from a time-perspective, education-perspective, inclination-perspective or shudder, a preparedness-perspective?
I don't think they are qualified. I just get nervous when the Government starts trying to take that choice away from people. The GP's comment about the educational system "homogenizing" society and how that could be a "good thing" struck me close to the bone. A large part of my ethic background is Native American. Compulsory education was often used to destroy Native American culture, language and tradition.
Looking back on that history I'm somewhat hesitant to embrace someone who rails against home schooling because of "bible schooling". His entire post had way too much of a "We know what's better for you" tone, IMHO.
Sports is a great example of how the focus in schools has been taken off of education.
I'll probably have to turn in my nerd card for suggesting this but if you've bothered to look at the obesity rate in this country you could probably make a pretty compelling argument for why physical education in this country needs to be expanded.
We will immediately get several tiers of education, ranked according to price
We already have that though. How many people do you know that picked the location of their home based on the school district it was in? Do you think that everybody has the means to do that? I don't think gutting the public school system is the way to go but don't pretend that there aren't already socio-economic inequalities in the system.
The only way to educate everyone is to give everyone the same education.
I'm game..... always wanted to go to Cornell!
On the other hand, it is rare that a true idiot is elected by the people
Yeah, it's only happened twice in the last eight years ;)
Well, a classic education is no longer being taught. Where's the Socratic logic class in High School? Where's Latin? Why arent Plato's works discussed? Where are the Geometers? What about teaching Leibniz calculus to high schoolers? Even elementary students know what acceleration is.
What ever happened to civics class? It depresses me that most people don't understand basic concepts about our political system.
The amount of arrogance and condescension in your post is truly astonishing. I don't know where your political affiliations lie but you just managed to display nearly every single negative stereotype about Liberals. And before anybody shoots the messenger you should know that I'm a liberal Democrat.
Have you actually spoken to the people in the lower 50% of our population?
So are you saying that the people who have a lower socio-economic status than you or I shouldn't be allowed to home school their children?
it's easy to forget that many people exist that do not car about education in the least
Says the person who couldn't be bothered to proofread his post for spelling mistakes and/or typos. Sorry, I had to dig you for this one ;)
Not to mention the people who turn home schooling into bible schooling. Not that it's bad unless they crack down on critical thinking or don't teach evolution at all or something, but you know some people will do that.
So what? Shouldn't parents have the right to teach their kids whatever they want? Why is it any business of the Government what I choose to teach to my kids? Personally I don't want my kid taught creationism in biology class (that's what theology class is for) but I also don't want the Government telling me how to raise him either.
And you want those people to home school their kids?
You actually used the term "those people"? If I was referring to a minority group as "those people" I'd probably be called a racist. Think of the language you are using and how it might read.
Our education system does homogenize our society, but for the poor/unfortunate that is usually a good thing.
Do you realize how arrogant that statement sounds?
Competitive with what exactly?
Any one of the other fields that you can obtain employment in for many times more the salary of the typical public school teacher? Particularly in states like New York that require a Masters Degree to obtain/keep a teaching license?
Do you feel the same when GPL software being illegally distributed?
Do you think that a six or seven digit fine would really be just punishment for illegal distribution of GPL'ed software?
I certainly feel disillusioned with the whole process before having even gotten involved with it
I'm more disillusioned after getting involved in it but I still think it's for the greater good in the end. You'll never change everything -- but if you can manage to make a small impact somewhere (which is much easier to do on a local level) then you've done some good.
As for living in China, it might not be as nice as out here in the west, but compared to certain places in Africa, and North Korea, it's probably like living in Disneyland
Until you criticize the communist Government that is.... Granted, I'd take China over North Korea any day but let's not pretend that being better than North Korea is something to brag about.
I also had a friend go over to Saudi Arabia recently for a few months, and he liked it - but he was out there working for an oil company, so perhaps that makes all the difference.
Add a leading 's' to the words that I highlighted and then tell me if your friend would have had the same experience. Saudi Arabia == sexual apartheid. I'm hard pressed to think of a worse place on this planet to be female.
But the method of policing kiddie porn here is essentially the same as the method of policing speech within the Chinese borders: ISPs and hosting services take down content, and the police occasionally raid higher priority figures.
Do you know a different way to police content on the internet?