To engage in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", one must have, above all, Life
To adequately maintain one's life, one must have the means to preserve it. In the modern age, this means having a handgun to defend yourself.
So, where is my government issued handgun and ammo?
Your right to life is like your right to bear arms or freedom of the press. If by some means you have obtained your life, your gun, or the publication of something you wrote, the government cannot deprive you of it without due process of law nor outlaw obtaining it. You do not have a right to someone elses gun, press and paper, life, labor, or property.
Minor correction: The Bill of Rights was not intended to limit state governments, only the federal government. See James Madison's proposal to Congress that became the bill of rights.
"I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions... that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights."
If the bill of rights was intended to limit state as well as federal government, then this proposal makes no sense. That Madison proposed this in addition to what became the first and sixth amendments means that those amendments did not apply to the states, and Madison thought those restrictions needed to be on the states as well as the federal gov.
Not a chance. You actually think that they can see anything through those dollar signs??? They are blind (and stupid!) enough already.
I recommend trying bear arms. With bears still attached. After the bears have eaten a few of the fatter politicians mabe the rest of the politicians won't be in such a hurry to ban guns and save the wildlife anymore.;))
No it is not irrelevant. True, it is not necessary to understand how the mind does what it does to get some understanding of what it does.
But, we are limited in 'understanding how the mind is performing' by our understanding of the mind. To use your example, mechanical engineers. Yes, you can design a car or bridge without understanding the atom. But, can you build a nano-scale robot without understanding the atom? Or a space elevator? (think carbon nanotubes?)
Our understanding of the mind limits our understanding of how the mind performs. The real question is, how much? What can/can't we understand now?
Silver fits 2 just fine. It is easy to exchange, high value/size ratio etc. In order for something to be an effective store of value, the total supply needs to be more or less fixed. Historically silver fit this well, as did gold. It was slow and expensive to obtain new supplies, by mining. Once the silver entered circulation, it tended to stay there, or be converted int jewelry, which was easily reclaimed and returned to circulation as needed. The amounts in, or easily converted to circulation did not change much.
Silver is now used as a catalyst in making some basic industrial chemicals, and in electrical parts. This accounts for more than half of all consumption. Reclaiming this silver for currency will not happen, as it is actively being used. If the economy improves, demand for these goes up. and the amount of silver that can enter circulation goes down, or negitive. Economic downturns do the opposite. The supply is not fixed. Since such a large amount of production is used this way, a small change in use results in a larger change in whatever is left to go to currency. In short, there will be price fluctuations in all comodities that are not caused by changes in the demand or supply of those comodities. Inflation and deflation, as we have now, just not at the hands of bankers and politicians. BAD. We also use more than we mine, and have for years. That would have to change or there would be constant inflation.
Another way to say this is that currency use is just like any other use, an increase in demand. Products that use silver would be impacted by the higher prices as you said, but currency prices would also be impacted by the products that use the silver, and for the same reasons, they are competing for a limited supply of silver.
Inconsistancy with other (fiat) currencies? Or are the fiat currencies inconsistant with precious metals? What is the difference?
You make some good points, but you also make a couple of big errors. These errors are easy to make, they are non-obvious.
First, the CPI (actual numbers, not the concept) doesn't mean squat. The government has been monkeying around with the numbers for as long as it has been reporting them.
Second, there are two forms of deflation (see the Austrian viewpoint, Causes section) Bad deflation == money/goods ratio falls because money decreases. Benign deflation == money/goods ratio falls because goods increase. I do not recall exact numbers, but by the end of the Industrial Revolution in England, prices had fallen to about 1/10th of their former prices. (about 100 years IIRC). This was one of the greatest boom times ever. This type of deflation only hurts those who have too much debt. Unless the whole economy has too much debt, then bad deflation hits too. (ouch!)*
The process of converting to a gold standard could cause bad deflation, but does not have too. If we had a year or two warning, the price of gold would skyrocket (as you said) before the gold/dollar ratios were fixed, gold price would stabilize, and then paper money would be withdrawn. There would be little or no deflation. Your debts would not become more expensive to pay off and it would work.
There are serious problems with a gold standard. The first is of course that there is not enough gold around, and it is mostly hoarded. Instant have-waay-too-muches and have-nones. How big would a 25 cent gold piece be anyway? Could I even see it? Pop machine anyone?? This is mostly a problem of how do we convert to a gold standard. I think anything less than a decade is impossible. This is not an inherant problem with a gold standard.
The other major problem with a gold standard is that it is not immune to inflation either. It is just out of politicians and bankers hands. (A big bonus true, but no gaurentee against inflation) If there were a major gold discovery: instant infaltion. (example: the Spanish discovered America and took a lot of gold & silver back to spain. Ruined Spains economy) A large-scale industrial use of gold would also be very bad news for a gold standard. This is why silver would be a very bad currency now. Over 1/2 of all silver is used to make industrial equipment & electrical parts, not jewelry or coins. (and we use 20% more than we mine!!!).
A gold standard NOW is probably a recipe for disaster. In general, a gold standard is not. On the other hand, a fiat currency is a recipe for disaster. The only historical example of a fiat currency that did not end in massive hyperinflation, is the one that we are living in. It is just not over yet. It is also the largest by far.
*BTW, the world has too much debt now. Wonder why productivity can keep growing and the economy still tank? With too much debt any fall in price for any reason triggers bad deflation. Oh wait... productivity numbers are government figures too, and they are among the worst. That $700 PC? Counts as $4000 to the GDP! (productivity==GDP/workers ratio) (last years figures, much worse now)
Is there anything stoping a FOSS app from implimenting it as an option? Or somebody else adding it to a forked version? App. portability will not be crippled. Unless the features turn out to be very usefull. Then it will be ext3 XFS etc (and I guess FreeBSD?) that get hurt, not the app.
MS has some advantages in this area, but I think that they are limited mostly to their own apps (Office, SQL server, IIS etc.) MS can force compliance on these quite easily. Third party apps, not really, unless MS breaks backward compat. Or the features turn out to be very usefull.
Actually I would guess that this would result in fewer p2p traders, (but more variety on p2p!). Think about it for a moment. A chance to build up your music library without the risk of an RIAA lawsuit. (unless XM radio has the ability to detect and report this kind of recording - doesn't look like it.)
No, not kidding. One, mabe two generations. These are not isolated 'special cases' as you imply. I hear about them constantly. Usually poor uneducated immigrants who come here (US) and through hard work and dilligence succeed. They usually have a language barrier too. These are not only historical cases. I still hear about them happening today. The only reason that I can see for the blacks remaining in the extreamly poor conditions they were (and to some extent still are) in, say post 1950 or '60, is a)legally sanctioned persecution, (back to segregation at a minimum.) or b) There is something in their culture which discourages bettering yourself.
Special cases? sorry, african americans are the special case. There is no other group in the US, who are in such a miserable state, as blacks. Asians, hispanics, irish, eastern europeans, etc. All of these immigrant groups have done far better for themselves than the blacks, even after if you count blacks 'immigration' date, as the civil rights movement. Why are blacks in such bad shape? Why? WHY!!?? Answer the damn question! That is what I asked in my first post, you have artfully avoided it. I did not say that blacks will get out of their rut in one or two generations. I said they would, if they abandoned the crappy, self-defeating elements of their culture. I even put it in bold, and you missed it. Please include an explination of why black immigrants do better than those whose ancesters have been here longer than mine.
" -Where are the wealthy black buisnessmen, the black scientists and engineers?
You know that they exist."
Yup, said so explicitly.
"They're just not particularly common."
We are in agreement there at least.
"Does the black population as a whole... have as high of a percent of scholars and... businessmen as American jews,"
My example was european jews, particularly 19th century and earlier (my first post was not clear on the date, sorry) not those who immigrated here. Plus, europe had Hitler. That makes meaningfull comparisons to modern jews hard.
"You should tell that to a black man I know around here."
Your special case, here is mine, Colin Powell.
I have also met several blacks (they are a bit rare here in Utah,) in classes in school etc. And it took me weeks to notice that they were not white. Their culture was close enough to mine that I did not notice. Can't say the same for those I met in the Philly area... Except one. Oh yea, he immigrated from Nigeria. He had as much in common with the African American culture as I did.
Quotas? You sounded like you despised the way quotas are. That is what I went off of. I am afraid they are as fair as such an inherantly unfair system can be. And Skunk Works still got in political trouble (read criticised by media/activists) for not hiring hispanic engineers. Not sued for violating affirmative action laws. (IIRC!)
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Try this on for size. What about teaching that all languages came from one language that was spoken in a city called Babel, That there was a worldwide flood about 3000 BC or so, and that adultry will cause the destruction of our culture if not stamped out. Note that I did not say that god did, or is involved in any way with these things. So that can be taught in schools too right? Of course not. This is subtle evangelism of christianity (or possibly judasim). How? Some of the conclusions that come from accepting the christian theology are being taught. Secular humanism is being taught in the public schools in just the same manner. It is harder to spot. What really is the difference between teaching what Newton discovered about gravity and social scientists' conclusions about society? Not much, at least on the surface. Only by carefull study of the research can you be sure that the conclusions of the social scientists are based soley on the facts, and not on their religious beliefs. (I am including secular humanism as a religion here, this applies as well to secular hunamism as it does to christianity.) Some examples here might be teaching that homosexuality is an 'alternative lifestyle' instead of a sin,* That masterbation is 'normal and acceptable' vs evil, and other sex ed subjects. Enviromental issues come up here. Are we supposed to 'have dominion over animals' or preserve biodiversity and preserve the natural environment? Both conclusions are religiously based, not (usually) scientific.
And yes, I am aware of the deadlock here. How do you teach anything then? I am afraid that public schools and separation of church and state, as currently interpreted, are incompatible. At this point you might want to check/. user names. I am not the person you started this thread with, and he and I probably have different views. So, a direct answer to your question, "What evangelism of secular humanism, blatant or subtle, have you seen in public schools?" A fair bit, although not near as much as the christian right does. And it is almost all subtle. There is also some (less, but still...) christian evangelism too.
*I am not implying here that it is or isn't, it's just an example. Same for the other examples.
Education: How many generations? One, mabe two, if the people do not hold fiercely to that bad part of their culture Granted however, that the persecution of the blacks has only lifted completely since the 1960's. That is about the one, mabe two generations time. That blacks are not completely over this is not that much of a surprise. Why is this so short? If it is the result of persecution, then as soon as the persecution is gone there is nothing to stop the people from getting education (self education at least) and this does not take long. There are plenty of examples in history of poor uneducated people teaching themselvs and going somewhere. But if their culture actively opposes education, then the persecution is irrelavent. And the lack of education will remain until the culture changes.
But, in fact this is exactally what I was trying to say in the first place. Is the condition of the blacks in America primarily the result of black culture, or persecution? That there is some persecution is unquestioned. Is that the cause, or the result of their condition? I believe it is their culture that holds them back, not racisim. (believe!=proved to me)
As for the european jews, If you thought I meant that the jews were all rich, or even above average, you misunderstood me (I could have been clearer!) The jews were persecuted. hard. as bad or worse than anything done to the blacks since slavery. The result was that they were by and large poor. But the stereotype exists because there were enough jews who, by hard work, luck, and shrewed buisness dealings, got rich. The jews were confined to the ghettoes by law. They couldn't leave. Including the rich ones. The Rothschilds headquarters, in the early 1800's, was still in the ghetto of Frankfort. This was at the time when they were major, if not the principal bankers for Austria, and major players in England, France and Italy. The black comunity in the US has had 40 years or so without most of the persecution that the jews had. And for the most part they haven't succeded as well as the jews did under worse conditions. Where are the wealthy black buisnessmen, the black scientists and engineers? Thats right. The few that exist are ostricized from the black comunity, accused of being 'white' etc. And in a sense this is true. They are no longer black by culture. They have adopted the culture of the white majority and are succeeding about as well as the whites. Not quite, there is still the persecution by dumb white racists, but they are much closer to the white averages than the black ones.
As for the quotas, I was explaining why the quotas are based on the number "who are qualified to fit the position". Unless I seriously misunderstood your post, you wanted them to be based on the porportion of the population as a whole. The example of Skunk Works was from the 70's. Not sure how/if the laws have changed since then.
Theology - from greek theos (god) and logos (words or discourse) Words about god. Who (or what) he is, what he does (or does not do). Usually in the context of 'How does this matter to humans?'
"Secular humanists accept a world view or philosophy called naturalism, in which the physical laws of the universe are not superseded by non-material or supernatural entities such as demons, gods, or other 'spiritual' beings outside the realm of the natural universe."
Or in other words, everything that happens does so because of those natural laws, not God. Or yet again, that God, if he exists, does not do anything that we can notice. This is a definition of what god does or does not do, and is at its core a theological statement.
"How much less theological could one be? How could one be much less theological?" By not talking about what god does or does not do.
Do you define 'gay' as 'a man being attracted to and desiring sex with men' or 'a man who has sex with another man (or other men)'? And does the same logic apply to straight? Does straight (or hetero) for men mean 'a man who is attracted to and desires sex with women' or ''a man who has sex with a women (or women)'?
If the act itself is a required element, then gues what, I am not gay,.. or straight. (queue jokes about anti-social nerd...) What am I then? (and should I care?)
"Social Security fund has been raided over the years by both Democrats and Republicans alike"
Actually it is much worse than that. The Social Srcurity Trust Fund is a legal fraud. I was all set to explain this when I realized that this wikipedia article already did a fine job it. Read it, it is short.
The trust fund is nothing more than another name for about 30% of the national debt. (The funny thing here is that both the fund and 30% of the national debt exist only in a bookkeeping sense. Both could be written off without affecting social security, or the federal budget in any way!)
Developing nations also survive for the most part on manual labor. In manual labor bodies (numbers) count more than brains or skills. I imagine that if parents in the US (and places with similar economies) had to depend on their childeren, they would place much more emphasis on educating their childeren, as that is the largest factor in income in a developed country. Not numbers of kids.
The question here is not 'Are black underpriveledged?' That is unquestionably true, as your figures show. The question is, 'Why are blacks, on average, underpriveledged?' Is the primary cause discrimination by others, or is it the culture (or some other cause) that is internal to blacks? I have a hard time believing that discrimination could cause what we see. Jews were persecuted in europe far longer, and just as badly as blacks were (post slavery at least), and yet the stereotypical jew is rich, not poor.
As for affirmative action, I remember a book written by one of the directors of Lockheed's Skunk Works in California. He stated that they were constantly violating affirmative action quotas, dispite hiring every qualified hispanic engineer they could. There were lots of hispanics in the area, but hispanic engineers did not exist for the most part. I think his exact words were '[they] did not go to college.' There is a reason that the quotas are the way they are, they may not be totally fair, but what you suggest is not practical.
And the CO2 comes from volcanic activity in the area. No such activity in lake ontario, so no worries. We would know if the lake was saturated with CO2.
Actually there is a large heat sink much closer than that. Millions of tons of rock and earth. About six feet down.
The dynamics are a little different, which makes it difficult to use for high-rise buildings and other high-density developements, but it is well suited for suburbs.
Yes, it has been modified several times today. But all of them are minor edits. None of them change the history, or ownership entries. Take a look at the history tab yourself.
Yes, but it is flawed. Rocks from the top of a mountain do not make legs stronger, hiking to the top to get them does. Buying (or using an aircraft to get) those rocks defeats the purpose. The licence test only catches incompetence, not recklessness, or most bad judgment (late for work and speeding, drinking etc.) Training for a test will only make people with bad coordination and related problems safer. If they could get a little practice first anyway. Young adults typically do not have these problems and so testing them does little. Do you see why I made the distinction between the licence and the process of getting them? The process can (but not will!) help make drivers safer. The licence won't.
Now, if the driving tests were more rigorous like they have in Europe, maby I would be a little less harsh, but the training here in the US is almost worthless.
"They give the state a mechanism to take a dangerous driver off the roads, without slamming him in prison.
And making guns illegal will keep criminals from using them to commit crimes. Sorry, but I do not buy that. Same for the elderly, except they will usually realize 'they said I can't drive safely, so maby I shouldn't'
You misunderstood me about minimum driving ages. I was not advocating firm minimum driving ages. (nor am I convinced they should be repealed) Just asking where you stood.
The media mostly pays attention to the higher levels, as you put it. That free publicity is important. Plus a lot of people don't believe anything is real if it is not in the mainstream media. Ignoring those higher levels would be stupid, except possibly when you are just starting. (no media is better than bad media for a first impression!)
Slashdot Mirror
- To engage in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", one must have, above all, Life
- To adequately maintain one's life, one must have the means to preserve it. In the modern age, this means having a handgun to defend yourself.
So, where is my government issued handgun and ammo?Your right to life is like your right to bear arms or freedom of the press. If by some means you have obtained your life, your gun, or the publication of something you wrote, the government cannot deprive you of it without due process of law nor outlaw obtaining it. You do not have a right to someone elses gun, press and paper, life, labor, or property.
"I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions ... that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights."
If the bill of rights was intended to limit state as well as federal government, then this proposal makes no sense. That Madison proposed this in addition to what became the first and sixth amendments means that those amendments did not apply to the states, and Madison thought those restrictions needed to be on the states as well as the federal gov.
Not a chance. You actually think that they can see anything through those dollar signs??? They are blind (and stupid!) enough already.
I recommend trying bear arms. With bears still attached. After the bears have eaten a few of the fatter politicians mabe the rest of the politicians won't be in such a hurry to ban guns and save the wildlife anymore.
HOW do you do it?? Care to fix this fidget42?
But, we are limited in 'understanding how the mind is performing' by our understanding of the mind. To use your example, mechanical engineers. Yes, you can design a car or bridge without understanding the atom. But, can you build a nano-scale robot without understanding the atom? Or a space elevator? (think carbon nanotubes?)
Our understanding of the mind limits our understanding of how the mind performs. The real question is, how much? What can/can't we understand now?
Silver fits 2 just fine. It is easy to exchange, high value/size ratio etc. In order for something to be an effective store of value, the total supply needs to be more or less fixed. Historically silver fit this well, as did gold. It was slow and expensive to obtain new supplies, by mining. Once the silver entered circulation, it tended to stay there, or be converted int jewelry, which was easily reclaimed and returned to circulation as needed. The amounts in, or easily converted to circulation did not change much.
Silver is now used as a catalyst in making some basic industrial chemicals, and in electrical parts. This accounts for more than half of all consumption. Reclaiming this silver for currency will not happen, as it is actively being used. If the economy improves, demand for these goes up. and the amount of silver that can enter circulation goes down, or negitive. Economic downturns do the opposite. The supply is not fixed. Since such a large amount of production is used this way, a small change in use results in a larger change in whatever is left to go to currency. In short, there will be price fluctuations in all comodities that are not caused by changes in the demand or supply of those comodities. Inflation and deflation, as we have now, just not at the hands of bankers and politicians. BAD. We also use more than we mine, and have for years. That would have to change or there would be constant inflation.
Another way to say this is that currency use is just like any other use, an increase in demand. Products that use silver would be impacted by the higher prices as you said, but currency prices would also be impacted by the products that use the silver, and for the same reasons, they are competing for a limited supply of silver.
Inconsistancy with other (fiat) currencies? Or are the fiat currencies inconsistant with precious metals? What is the difference?
First, the CPI (actual numbers, not the concept) doesn't mean squat. The government has been monkeying around with the numbers for as long as it has been reporting them.
Second, there are two forms of deflation (see the Austrian viewpoint, Causes section) Bad deflation == money/goods ratio falls because money decreases. Benign deflation == money/goods ratio falls because goods increase. I do not recall exact numbers, but by the end of the Industrial Revolution in England, prices had fallen to about 1/10th of their former prices. (about 100 years IIRC). This was one of the greatest boom times ever. This type of deflation only hurts those who have too much debt. Unless the whole economy has too much debt, then bad deflation hits too. (ouch!)*
The process of converting to a gold standard could cause bad deflation, but does not have too. If we had a year or two warning, the price of gold would skyrocket (as you said) before the gold/dollar ratios were fixed, gold price would stabilize, and then paper money would be withdrawn. There would be little or no deflation. Your debts would not become more expensive to pay off and it would work.
There are serious problems with a gold standard. The first is of course that there is not enough gold around, and it is mostly hoarded. Instant have-waay-too-muches and have-nones. How big would a 25 cent gold piece be anyway? Could I even see it? Pop machine anyone?? This is mostly a problem of how do we convert to a gold standard. I think anything less than a decade is impossible. This is not an inherant problem with a gold standard.
The other major problem with a gold standard is that it is not immune to inflation either. It is just out of politicians and bankers hands. (A big bonus true, but no gaurentee against inflation) If there were a major gold discovery: instant infaltion. (example: the Spanish discovered America and took a lot of gold & silver back to spain. Ruined Spains economy) A large-scale industrial use of gold would also be very bad news for a gold standard. This is why silver would be a very bad currency now. Over 1/2 of all silver is used to make industrial equipment & electrical parts, not jewelry or coins. (and we use 20% more than we mine!!!).
A gold standard NOW is probably a recipe for disaster. In general, a gold standard is not. On the other hand, a fiat currency is a recipe for disaster. The only historical example of a fiat currency that did not end in massive hyperinflation, is the one that we are living in. It is just not over yet. It is also the largest by far.
*BTW, the world has too much debt now. Wonder why productivity can keep growing and the economy still tank? With too much debt any fall in price for any reason triggers bad deflation. Oh wait... productivity numbers are government figures too, and they are among the worst. That $700 PC? Counts as $4000 to the GDP! (productivity==GDP/workers ratio) (last years figures, much worse now)
Is there anything stoping a FOSS app from implimenting it as an option? Or somebody else adding it to a forked version? App. portability will not be crippled. Unless the features turn out to be very usefull. Then it will be ext3 XFS etc (and I guess FreeBSD?) that get hurt, not the app.
MS has some advantages in this area, but I think that they are limited mostly to their own apps (Office, SQL server, IIS etc.) MS can force compliance on these quite easily. Third party apps, not really, unless MS breaks backward compat. Or the features turn out to be very usefull.
Actually I would guess that this would result in fewer p2p traders, (but more variety on p2p!). Think about it for a moment. A chance to build up your music library without the risk of an RIAA lawsuit. (unless XM radio has the ability to detect and report this kind of recording - doesn't look like it.)
(laugh, it's a joke)
Special cases? sorry, african americans are the special case. There is no other group in the US, who are in such a miserable state, as blacks. Asians, hispanics, irish, eastern europeans, etc. All of these immigrant groups have done far better for themselves than the blacks, even after if you count blacks 'immigration' date, as the civil rights movement. Why are blacks in such bad shape? Why? WHY!!?? Answer the damn question! That is what I asked in my first post, you have artfully avoided it. I did not say that blacks will get out of their rut in one or two generations. I said they would, if they abandoned the crappy, self-defeating elements of their culture. I even put it in bold, and you missed it. Please include an explination of why black immigrants do better than those whose ancesters have been here longer than mine.
" -Where are the wealthy black buisnessmen, the black scientists and engineers?
You know that they exist."
Yup, said so explicitly.
"They're just not particularly common."
We are in agreement there at least.
"Does the black population as a whole ... have as high of a percent of scholars and ... businessmen as American jews,"
My example was european jews, particularly 19th century and earlier (my first post was not clear on the date, sorry) not those who immigrated here. Plus, europe had Hitler. That makes meaningfull comparisons to modern jews hard.
"You should tell that to a black man I know around here."
Your special case, here is mine, Colin Powell.
I have also met several blacks (they are a bit rare here in Utah,) in classes in school etc. And it took me weeks to notice that they were not white. Their culture was close enough to mine that I did not notice. Can't say the same for those I met in the Philly area... Except one. Oh yea, he immigrated from Nigeria. He had as much in common with the African American culture as I did.
Quotas? You sounded like you despised the way quotas are. That is what I went off of. I am afraid they are as fair as such an inherantly unfair system can be. And Skunk Works still got in political trouble (read criticised by media/activists) for not hiring hispanic engineers. Not sued for violating affirmative action laws. (IIRC!)
Oh, wait...
The last part especially,
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Try this on for size. What about teaching that all languages came from one language that was spoken in a city called Babel, That there was a worldwide flood about 3000 BC or so, and that adultry will cause the destruction of our culture if not stamped out. Note that I did not say that god did, or is involved in any way with these things. So that can be taught in schools too right? Of course not. This is subtle evangelism of christianity (or possibly judasim). How? Some of the conclusions that come from accepting the christian theology are being taught. Secular humanism is being taught in the public schools in just the same manner. It is harder to spot. What really is the difference between teaching what Newton discovered about gravity and social scientists' conclusions about society? Not much, at least on the surface. Only by carefull study of the research can you be sure that the conclusions of the social scientists are based soley on the facts, and not on their religious beliefs. (I am including secular humanism as a religion here, this applies as well to secular hunamism as it does to christianity.) Some examples here might be teaching that homosexuality is an 'alternative lifestyle' instead of a sin,* That masterbation is 'normal and acceptable' vs evil, and other sex ed subjects. Enviromental issues come up here. Are we supposed to 'have dominion over animals' or preserve biodiversity and preserve the natural environment? Both conclusions are religiously based, not (usually) scientific.
And yes, I am aware of the deadlock here. How do you teach anything then? I am afraid that public schools and separation of church and state, as currently interpreted, are incompatible. At this point you might want to check /. user names. I am not the person you started this thread with, and he and I probably have different views. So, a direct answer to your question, "What evangelism of secular humanism, blatant or subtle, have you seen in public schools?" A fair bit, although not near as much as the christian right does. And it is almost all subtle. There is also some (less, but still...) christian evangelism too.
*I am not implying here that it is or isn't, it's just an example. Same for the other examples.
But, in fact this is exactally what I was trying to say in the first place. Is the condition of the blacks in America primarily the result of black culture, or persecution? That there is some persecution is unquestioned. Is that the cause, or the result of their condition? I believe it is their culture that holds them back, not racisim. (believe!=proved to me)
As for the european jews, If you thought I meant that the jews were all rich, or even above average, you misunderstood me (I could have been clearer!) The jews were persecuted. hard. as bad or worse than anything done to the blacks since slavery. The result was that they were by and large poor. But the stereotype exists because there were enough jews who, by hard work, luck, and shrewed buisness dealings, got rich. The jews were confined to the ghettoes by law. They couldn't leave. Including the rich ones. The Rothschilds headquarters, in the early 1800's, was still in the ghetto of Frankfort. This was at the time when they were major, if not the principal bankers for Austria, and major players in England, France and Italy. The black comunity in the US has had 40 years or so without most of the persecution that the jews had. And for the most part they haven't succeded as well as the jews did under worse conditions. Where are the wealthy black buisnessmen, the black scientists and engineers? Thats right. The few that exist are ostricized from the black comunity, accused of being 'white' etc. And in a sense this is true. They are no longer black by culture. They have adopted the culture of the white majority and are succeeding about as well as the whites. Not quite, there is still the persecution by dumb white racists, but they are much closer to the white averages than the black ones.
As for the quotas, I was explaining why the quotas are based on the number "who are qualified to fit the position". Unless I seriously misunderstood your post, you wanted them to be based on the porportion of the population as a whole. The example of Skunk Works was from the 70's. Not sure how/if the laws have changed since then.
"Secular humanists accept a world view or philosophy called naturalism, in which the physical laws of the universe are not superseded by non-material or supernatural entities such as demons, gods, or other 'spiritual' beings outside the realm of the natural universe."
Or in other words, everything that happens does so because of those natural laws, not God. Or yet again, that God, if he exists, does not do anything that we can notice. This is a definition of what god does or does not do, and is at its core a theological statement.
"How much less theological could one be? How could one be much less theological?" By not talking about what god does or does not do.
If the act itself is a required element, then gues what, I am not gay, .. or straight. (queue jokes about anti-social nerd...) What am I then? (and should I care?)
Actually it is much worse than that. The Social Srcurity Trust Fund is a legal fraud. I was all set to explain this when I realized that this wikipedia article already did a fine job it. Read it, it is short.
The trust fund is nothing more than another name for about 30% of the national debt. (The funny thing here is that both the fund and 30% of the national debt exist only in a bookkeeping sense. Both could be written off without affecting social security, or the federal budget in any way!)
Developing nations also survive for the most part on manual labor. In manual labor bodies (numbers) count more than brains or skills. I imagine that if parents in the US (and places with similar economies) had to depend on their childeren, they would place much more emphasis on educating their childeren, as that is the largest factor in income in a developed country. Not numbers of kids.
As for affirmative action, I remember a book written by one of the directors of Lockheed's Skunk Works in California. He stated that they were constantly violating affirmative action quotas, dispite hiring every qualified hispanic engineer they could. There were lots of hispanics in the area, but hispanic engineers did not exist for the most part. I think his exact words were '[they] did not go to college.' There is a reason that the quotas are the way they are, they may not be totally fair, but what you suggest is not practical.
And the CO2 comes from volcanic activity in the area. No such activity in lake ontario, so no worries. We would know if the lake was saturated with CO2.
The dynamics are a little different, which makes it difficult to use for high-rise buildings and other high-density developements, but it is well suited for suburbs.
Yes, it has been modified several times today. But all of them are minor edits. None of them change the history, or ownership entries. Take a look at the history tab yourself.
"Yes... so can't you follow the logic?"
Yes, but it is flawed. Rocks from the top of a mountain do not make legs stronger, hiking to the top to get them does. Buying (or using an aircraft to get) those rocks defeats the purpose. The licence test only catches incompetence, not recklessness, or most bad judgment (late for work and speeding, drinking etc.) Training for a test will only make people with bad coordination and related problems safer. If they could get a little practice first anyway. Young adults typically do not have these problems and so testing them does little. Do you see why I made the distinction between the licence and the process of getting them? The process can (but not will!) help make drivers safer. The licence won't.
Now, if the driving tests were more rigorous like they have in Europe, maby I would be a little less harsh, but the training here in the US is almost worthless.
"They give the state a mechanism to take a dangerous driver off the roads, without slamming him in prison.
And making guns illegal will keep criminals from using them to commit crimes. Sorry, but I do not buy that. Same for the elderly, except they will usually realize 'they said I can't drive safely, so maby I shouldn't'
You misunderstood me about minimum driving ages. I was not advocating firm minimum driving ages. (nor am I convinced they should be repealed) Just asking where you stood.
So yea, I think you are right.
Like I said, I don't think the Republicrats care. Get in power, stay in power. Thats all they care about.