The issue is not with caring for your fellow man. If Mexicans entering the US were naturalizing in the traditional sense of the word, most people would have little problem with it.
The problem is that aside from those who enter and consume welfare resources, a significant number send nearly every dime they make back to their families to be spent outside of the US. This amounts to bolstering Mexico's economy while weakening the US's. Why do you think Fox is so eager to let his own people leave the country?
Combine this with how attractive a place Mexico is for skilled workers and the picture gets a little bit clearer. Fox wants to offload his downtrodden on the US.
I beg your pardon, but I've always been an all around mediocre student. Memorization of things like formulas has always been the easiest thing for me to do in school.
I honestly think you are flat out wrong. Critical thought is just about the only useful thing most students in science class could get out of the class. Memorizing formulas and other abstract concepts which do not really apply -- except in theory -- should not be the underlying goal.
Your last statement regarding ID is just flat out anti-scientific. It wreaks of pop-science. Don't get me wrong, I have met people with science degrees from respectable schools that I think are generally intelligent who believe the assertions of anything published in a scientific journal to be incontrovertible fact.
I suppose you know where on this planet an object, when dropped, accelerates at 9.8ms^2?
At any rate, my underlying point is that science classes in my experience base their evaluations on students' abilities to recite such things rather than apply critical thought.
This misses the underlying point though. Science class for kids is not supposed to turn them into scientists. It is for teaching them to evaluate things critically. This is demonstrated by how rudimentary some of the subject matter being taught in schools is.
Look at the differences between lower and upper level science classes at the university level. The lower level physics classes are designed to teach you to think like a physicist, while the upper level ones require that you throw out the "facts" you've learned previously in favor of learning how to apply physics in the real world rather than a vacuum.
Moreover, teaching in schools things like "ID may be possible" should not be in any way threatening to an objective and dispassionate scientific world. In fact, an objective and dispassionate scientist should welcome challenges to his theories. There should be no need for a defensive response to such a notion, except by the pseudo-scientific masses that fail to realize the plain truth: Reality dictates science, science does not dictate reality.
That, in my view, is exactly the problem with science class. To think that it is somehow more useful to memorize atomic weights, equations for physics, and notations to describe molecular structures than it is to teach students how to critically examine things is becoming more and more prevalent.
Actually, they were. We were never supposed to question anything we were told. Our experiments were often very crudely designed and served as little more than to act as an "I told you so" from the teachers. Beyond that, I am not referring to the boiling point of water. I am thinking of things relating more to physics and biology.
I am interested to know what constitutes an independently proven scientific fact.
Eighth grade science class is not supposed to be designed to conduct experiments under precise conditions. It is supposed to be about teaching students to think scientifically. It is certainly not meant to hammer theories into our heads.
Recently, I remembered doing lab experiments in middle school and high school. I remember that if we ever got results that differed from those necessary to support the theory we were experimenting with, we were told we did the experiment wrong and either downgraded or told to redo it.
Not that we always did the experiments carefully or properly, but it is a little bit ironic to have something like that in a science class. Shoving the popularly accepted theories in our faces was the primary goal and teaching us to think and reason scientifically was a distant second.
Let's keep in mind though the what is referred to as "domestic spying" occurred during the Clinton administration, but was not leaked (or at least not reported on). It was no more or less legal at that time.
It is also important to note that wiretapping phone calls only requires a warrant for information to be used against the target in a courtroom. Law enforcement agencies conduct wiretaps and other warrantless observation all the time with the understanding that they will not be able to use the evidence they collect in a court of law. The telephone records thing is pretty close to a complete non-issue. Precedent has consistently held that the records belong to the phone companies and it is their prerogative to give them up to anyone.
Anyway, long story short, I look at a lot of the scandals hitting the Bush Administration as things being done by Democrats who have lost a great deal or power and are desperate to regain it. Howard Dean even accused Bush of trying to send all of the Mexicans back over the border, which could not be further from the truth.
I disagree just in that I think reacting terrorism can be more than a knee-jerk "here's my freedom" reaction. From the pragmatic standpoint, it does make sense to temporarily give up some fairly minor freedoms that have been sacrificed throughout the history of this and most long-standing nations in favor of protection.
The potentials for abuse are endless, but this alone does not mean that they are realities. To be perfectly frank, I fail to see the benefits of so-called domestic spying unless the government is trying to catch law breakers. We are not in the Vietnam era where discenters needed to fear. We are living in a time where discenters clamor to get on television and in the newspapers. The government does not need to spy on us to weed out those who oppose it.
If an intelligence operation can not keep secrets, it is effectively useless and should be disbanded. I fear that this would open us up to more than we are prepared to handle.
I can accept that philosophy, but remember that goes far beyond the current administration and Republicans. It goes beyond the Democrats and Green Party too. Modeling a government strictly by the formalized civil libertarian philosophy has never succeeded.
I wouldn't just "blah blah" terrorist or others who have made it their mission to kill us. While you can make the argument that we are better off dead without the freedoms that have been revoked by post 9/11 legislation and policy, one could also make the argument that the freedoms are useless if we are dead.
Beyond that, we still have more freedoms now than we did under FDR or Lincoln, not to mention we are more free than most other countries in the world. While people here worry about privacy, many other countries explicitly forbid a large amount of what we would consider free speech (as in certain words and phrases can not leave your mouth).
Who's ass have I kissed? What hero have I worshipped?
How has my thought been demonstrative of taking my party's side over choosing between right and wrong? My comments on Clinton were directly related to people letting things slide when their party does one thing, but criticizing their opposition when they do it. (Beyond that I did not allude to bias, I stated its existence quite explicitly. Nice try for a big word though.)
Given that both the President and myself are registered Republicans, how can you make the statement that neither of us are in fact Republicans? Granted I am more conservative than most Republicans and Bush is more liberal, we are both Republicans.
Oh, and for the record, it is those obsessed with socialist revolution that tyrants have built their dictatorships on. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Castro come to mind.
Because he can't blow his nose without being under intense scrutiny. Do you think that discenters could be rounded up secretly. His executive powers are nothing new at all. They are just as abusable as they have ever been.
The government is using surveilance to weed out discenters instead of turning on TV or cracking open the NYT's editorial page.
Our current lack of freedoms makes our lives not worth living anyway. Somehow though, under presidents like FDR and Lincoln who used far more executive power, the US citizens managed to keep from commiting suicide.
The government should not have classified information, including information on how it is spying on our enemies. It should all be out in the public.
Bush will go too far if he he uses what you and many others consider controversial policies for reasons other than defending this country.
Fortunately for blacks in this country, not enough people applied that standard to Lincoln. Fortunately for us and our allies in WWII, this standard was also not applied to FDR. But unfortunately, this standard is being applied today.
Do you think speech which reveals intelligence secrets and undermines our ability to defend ourselves is protected and not treason? No matter how juicy the secret may be, USA Today knows the government can freely request phone records without any court order. There was no breech of the fourth amendment. What they did was sensationalistic and damaging to this country.
That is the point. Why is there such a bigger deal made of the use of these programs now than compared to the past, especially when Clinton did the most to advance their use?
I said Clinton and his administration were big pushers, not creators of the programs.
If Fitzgerald can prove Plame was a covert operative five years before her outing, I would imagine whoever leaked her status would be convicted. At a press conference several months ago, he said he was still unsure if this was the case.
Do you think anti-treason laws are unconstitutional?
In other words, you are advocating suicidal anarchy? At what point do we curb liberty to save our own lives? We are not a situation of being under foreign rule right now. (Please spare me the snide remarks about Bush being as oppressive as the King of England was. If you are familiar with US history, you will also be cognizant of how executive power has been much lower and much higher at different times.)
Well, whatever the legality may be, the news media does not report either one (the case you pointed to is the only example I've heard of at least). If they can show restraint in that area, I would hope they would show equal or greater restraint when it comes to national security.
Beyond that, Gonzales does have a mountain of legal precedent when it comes to the consequences of exercising speech. The notion of the news media selling out our national security disgusts me. Unless you believe Michael Moore's assertion that there is no terrorist threat to America, we do have enemies. Undermining our government's abilities to fight those enemies is despicable.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, I remember that happening.
The issue is not with caring for your fellow man. If Mexicans entering the US were naturalizing in the traditional sense of the word, most people would have little problem with it.
The problem is that aside from those who enter and consume welfare resources, a significant number send nearly every dime they make back to their families to be spent outside of the US. This amounts to bolstering Mexico's economy while weakening the US's. Why do you think Fox is so eager to let his own people leave the country?
Combine this with how attractive a place Mexico is for skilled workers and the picture gets a little bit clearer. Fox wants to offload his downtrodden on the US.
Traffic lights != tons of web servers...
I beg your pardon, but I've always been an all around mediocre student. Memorization of things like formulas has always been the easiest thing for me to do in school.
I honestly think you are flat out wrong. Critical thought is just about the only useful thing most students in science class could get out of the class. Memorizing formulas and other abstract concepts which do not really apply -- except in theory -- should not be the underlying goal.
Your last statement regarding ID is just flat out anti-scientific. It wreaks of pop-science. Don't get me wrong, I have met people with science degrees from respectable schools that I think are generally intelligent who believe the assertions of anything published in a scientific journal to be incontrovertible fact.
I suppose you know where on this planet an object, when dropped, accelerates at 9.8ms^2?
At any rate, my underlying point is that science classes in my experience base their evaluations on students' abilities to recite such things rather than apply critical thought.
Please see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186846&cid=154 17316.
This misses the underlying point though. Science class for kids is not supposed to turn them into scientists. It is for teaching them to evaluate things critically. This is demonstrated by how rudimentary some of the subject matter being taught in schools is.
Look at the differences between lower and upper level science classes at the university level. The lower level physics classes are designed to teach you to think like a physicist, while the upper level ones require that you throw out the "facts" you've learned previously in favor of learning how to apply physics in the real world rather than a vacuum.
Moreover, teaching in schools things like "ID may be possible" should not be in any way threatening to an objective and dispassionate scientific world. In fact, an objective and dispassionate scientist should welcome challenges to his theories. There should be no need for a defensive response to such a notion, except by the pseudo-scientific masses that fail to realize the plain truth: Reality dictates science, science does not dictate reality.
That, in my view, is exactly the problem with science class. To think that it is somehow more useful to memorize atomic weights, equations for physics, and notations to describe molecular structures than it is to teach students how to critically examine things is becoming more and more prevalent.
Actually, they were. We were never supposed to question anything we were told. Our experiments were often very crudely designed and served as little more than to act as an "I told you so" from the teachers. Beyond that, I am not referring to the boiling point of water. I am thinking of things relating more to physics and biology.
I am interested to know what constitutes an independently proven scientific fact.
Eighth grade science class is not supposed to be designed to conduct experiments under precise conditions. It is supposed to be about teaching students to think scientifically. It is certainly not meant to hammer theories into our heads.
Recently, I remembered doing lab experiments in middle school and high school. I remember that if we ever got results that differed from those necessary to support the theory we were experimenting with, we were told we did the experiment wrong and either downgraded or told to redo it.
Not that we always did the experiments carefully or properly, but it is a little bit ironic to have something like that in a science class. Shoving the popularly accepted theories in our faces was the primary goal and teaching us to think and reason scientifically was a distant second.
Let's keep in mind though the what is referred to as "domestic spying" occurred during the Clinton administration, but was not leaked (or at least not reported on). It was no more or less legal at that time.
It is also important to note that wiretapping phone calls only requires a warrant for information to be used against the target in a courtroom. Law enforcement agencies conduct wiretaps and other warrantless observation all the time with the understanding that they will not be able to use the evidence they collect in a court of law. The telephone records thing is pretty close to a complete non-issue. Precedent has consistently held that the records belong to the phone companies and it is their prerogative to give them up to anyone.
Anyway, long story short, I look at a lot of the scandals hitting the Bush Administration as things being done by Democrats who have lost a great deal or power and are desperate to regain it. Howard Dean even accused Bush of trying to send all of the Mexicans back over the border, which could not be further from the truth.
I disagree just in that I think reacting terrorism can be more than a knee-jerk "here's my freedom" reaction. From the pragmatic standpoint, it does make sense to temporarily give up some fairly minor freedoms that have been sacrificed throughout the history of this and most long-standing nations in favor of protection.
The potentials for abuse are endless, but this alone does not mean that they are realities. To be perfectly frank, I fail to see the benefits of so-called domestic spying unless the government is trying to catch law breakers. We are not in the Vietnam era where discenters needed to fear. We are living in a time where discenters clamor to get on television and in the newspapers. The government does not need to spy on us to weed out those who oppose it.
If an intelligence operation can not keep secrets, it is effectively useless and should be disbanded. I fear that this would open us up to more than we are prepared to handle.
I can accept that philosophy, but remember that goes far beyond the current administration and Republicans. It goes beyond the Democrats and Green Party too. Modeling a government strictly by the formalized civil libertarian philosophy has never succeeded.
I wouldn't just "blah blah" terrorist or others who have made it their mission to kill us. While you can make the argument that we are better off dead without the freedoms that have been revoked by post 9/11 legislation and policy, one could also make the argument that the freedoms are useless if we are dead.
Beyond that, we still have more freedoms now than we did under FDR or Lincoln, not to mention we are more free than most other countries in the world. While people here worry about privacy, many other countries explicitly forbid a large amount of what we would consider free speech (as in certain words and phrases can not leave your mouth).
Thanks for the deep and thoughtful analysis.
Who's ass have I kissed? What hero have I worshipped?
How has my thought been demonstrative of taking my party's side over choosing between right and wrong? My comments on Clinton were directly related to people letting things slide when their party does one thing, but criticizing their opposition when they do it. (Beyond that I did not allude to bias, I stated its existence quite explicitly. Nice try for a big word though.)
Given that both the President and myself are registered Republicans, how can you make the statement that neither of us are in fact Republicans? Granted I am more conservative than most Republicans and Bush is more liberal, we are both Republicans.
Oh, and for the record, it is those obsessed with socialist revolution that tyrants have built their dictatorships on. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Castro come to mind.
Because he can't blow his nose without being under intense scrutiny. Do you think that discenters could be rounded up secretly. His executive powers are nothing new at all. They are just as abusable as they have ever been.
It's not a war cry. It is an allusion to the party bias of most of Bush's critics.
Bush will go too far if he he uses what you and many others consider controversial policies for reasons other than defending this country.
Fortunately for blacks in this country, not enough people applied that standard to Lincoln. Fortunately for us and our allies in WWII, this standard was also not applied to FDR. But unfortunately, this standard is being applied today.
Do you think speech which reveals intelligence secrets and undermines our ability to defend ourselves is protected and not treason? No matter how juicy the secret may be, USA Today knows the government can freely request phone records without any court order. There was no breech of the fourth amendment. What they did was sensationalistic and damaging to this country.
That is the point. Why is there such a bigger deal made of the use of these programs now than compared to the past, especially when Clinton did the most to advance their use?
I said Clinton and his administration were big pushers, not creators of the programs.
If Fitzgerald can prove Plame was a covert operative five years before her outing, I would imagine whoever leaked her status would be convicted. At a press conference several months ago, he said he was still unsure if this was the case.
Do you think anti-treason laws are unconstitutional?
In other words, you are advocating suicidal anarchy? At what point do we curb liberty to save our own lives? We are not a situation of being under foreign rule right now. (Please spare me the snide remarks about Bush being as oppressive as the King of England was. If you are familiar with US history, you will also be cognizant of how executive power has been much lower and much higher at different times.)
Calm down. I am saying 1. I believe the relevant expression is: The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Well, whatever the legality may be, the news media does not report either one (the case you pointed to is the only example I've heard of at least). If they can show restraint in that area, I would hope they would show equal or greater restraint when it comes to national security.
Beyond that, Gonzales does have a mountain of legal precedent when it comes to the consequences of exercising speech. The notion of the news media selling out our national security disgusts me. Unless you believe Michael Moore's assertion that there is no terrorist threat to America, we do have enemies. Undermining our government's abilities to fight those enemies is despicable.
Huh? What the hell does Ken Starr have to do with this? Anyway, the current administration is reminiscent of FDR's for me.
Ironically, the NYT's editorial staff praised Clinton for Carnivore and Echelon. Although I am not quite sure which "we" you are referring it.