Besides, we can have a nation of 'fair legal rules' that is assisted by 'the benevolence of other people'. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, despite your commentary.
I'm not sure about the long term viability of a kind of a system where rights are provided not by the guarantee law, but by the possible benevolence of individuals or private groups. I'd be the first person to cut down broad black and white distinctions in most political debates, but without law, and without guaranteed access to legal protection (habeas corpus - recently no longer guaranteed by the Patriot act, in case you missed that), all you have is a system where the poor must ask for permission or funds from the local benevolent group that might be there, and might be willing to help, in order to exercise the right to vote.
I always find it helpful to put myself in the situation of the people affected by the policy I'm discussing, and maybe you have, and maybe you are OK with asking - someone - for permission or funds to vote. I'm not.
When it comes to rights it is black and white. You either have guaranteed rights, or their not guaranteed and you have none.
So rather than relying on fair legal rules, homeless people should rely on the benevolence of other people? A nation of laws or a nation of people. You decide.
I assumed the "this" in "All this is is another grab for power and money" was referring to the post text that was quoted immediately before it, and I was right to do so. Further, you confirmed that assumption with your reply to my original question, when you attempted to defend your position. It's odd for you to now claim that you didn't say that I posted about a power grab, when it seems - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that simple logical interpretation shows that you did.
And you still didn't answer who exactly is grabbing the power from who. Upon rereading your original post, I guess I could see how you would think that a progressive tax is a grab at the power that comes with large amounts of money in the hands of the few - and frankly, I do think there aught to be a check on the power that money grants. It isn't just government that has the power to limit your freedom. Just ask anyone who has seen a third world sweat shop, or read about robber baron slums and sweatshops from our own history.
I really want to understand your position, but you seem to giving me a vague kind of circular reasoning - you said that I posted about a grab for money and power, and then when I asked who you thought were grabbing for that power, you answered; those who want to tax. Do you see the problem with that odd reasoning?
So I'll give you multiple choice, maybe. Who out of the following, is trying to grab for power, by my suggestion that we move the point of taxation to the top, rather than at the bottom:
* Corporations
* Poor People
* A vast left wing conspiracy
* A vast right wing conspiracy
* Rush Limbaugh
* Jack Thompson
* Democrats
* Republicans
* Old People
* Young People
* Mexicans
* Insert Other _______
I really do want to understand your position, especially as your position seems to resonate here on slashdot. Although the above is a bit glib, I think it demonstrates my point, that you didn't really answer my question about who exactly is trying to grab for power in my previous suggestion.
Just to add more to my original position, I would suggest that historically, the first three times the income tax was introduced (repealed after the first two times), it only taxed the top 5%. The first time it was Lincoln, and the third time it was F.D.R. originally to pay for the war, but then made permanent later. So there's my historical precedence for my position. What is your historical precedent for your accused power grab?
As far as I can tell, since we've been removing corporate taxes and weakening the kinds of taxes that those who run corporations would pay (taxes on the interest made by investments for example, the inappropriately marketed "Death Tax"), we've seen a stagnating increase (even a small decrease recently) in the middle income in the U.S., and an unbelievable ballooning of corporate income, and of the incomes of those who run them.
Are you happy with the practical implications of that kind of concentration of wealth? I hope you are in that upper income group if you are.
Does that qualify as a "power grab". I guess it does, if you believe that money equals power.
Despite all this extra information here, what I originally proposed did nothing to tax corporations more. What I originally suggested, was simply a more efficient want to tax the same money, in a different way, that would be much easier - and cheaper - to run. Rather than burdening every transaction made at the point of sale (in this case, the website), you would simply tax the income that the company makes on those transactions instead.
It's the same money being taxed, no more and no less. How could that possibly be considered a grab for money or power by anyone? I'd really like to know.
I will admit they deserve their fair share of blame, but isn't usually republicans - like George Bush - who tend to prefer high maintenance, regressive point of sales and usage taxes systems, over more simple and progressive corporate income tax systems? And Aren't they both taxing the same money at the end of the quarter anyway?
It's odd that they would prefer to tax the individual at the point of sale, rather than just taxing the income of the companies selling stuff online (like Amazon). It seems it would be significantly cheaper - as far as overhead costs go - to regulate the few at the top, as apposed to the many at the bottom. It's also effectively the same transactions that are being taxed (you get it from the income at the top, rather than the transaction at the bottom - but it's the same money).
I actually think the fix is kinda simple. Simply ban "trade secret" patents (patents where you don't have to demonstrate an implementation). Since software is implemented in the form of source code, you should have to show the source code (implementation) in order to get a patent on it. This would protect specifically written software as if it were an invention, but would not be so broad that it could stop someone from implementing the basic idea (algorithm - I suppose we need a legal definition for that too), which should not be patentable in the first place, which uses a different implementation (meaning different source code).
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.
Why do anti OSS guys always compare Linux to communism? I could see if all software was required by law to be open source, but it isn't required, and it generally isn't in practice. The way things are today, it's much more like public property. The most mature, basic elements of computing are those that are most likely to be open sourced - things like the operating system kernel, the WebBrowser and the other things that are too vital to healthy economic and social function.
When it comes to less mature, or less vital software, like various very company specific IT needs, or VOIP tech, or entertainment software like 3D engines, these things tend to be proprietary technology, and there are still OSS stuff playing catch up with them.
Also, there are real financial benefits to opening up the source of a very large, mature proprietary code base, that removes the religious aspects of any argument against OSS. Does it really make sense for Microsoft to spend $6 billion on what ended up being a very incremental update to Windows with Vista? They could have opened up some or all of the source, and turned it over to their partners, customers and the OSS "community" - all of whom have a great vested interest in the success of the platform(s) - for maintenance and spent that money on some real advances in tech and R&D, rather than just on the great deal of overhead it takes to maintain such an enormous code base. They could probably even keep their support contracts with the various OEMs out there, and maybe attract some new OEMs with that new tech they get from all their new R&D. There's nothing "religious" about that argument, not that I can see.
It's awesome that there can be forward progress in those nations, as it was great when very similar things happened here in the U.S. My hope is that we'll find a way to continue to lift those third world populations further out of poverty, while ensuring that their new situation will be stable into the future. Any gains they make will be lost, if the western-run shops pull out at the first sign of cheaper labor. It would also be great if the west could do this without sacrificing the progress we have made here in our own history.
> These have existed [in the bible] more or less unchanged for a couple thousand years.
LOL - next you'll claim it was in English that whole time, or that it was written entirely by one man or god all those thousand years ago. Seemingly smart people (judging by your other posts, you may be one of them) tend to give way too much credit to "the good book's" intentions. At some point, we are all going to have to admit that the thing was pieced together for largely political ends, and that its basic intent may or may not have been all that benevolent the countless times it has been revised, localized and translated.
The fact that a show can't be as edgy as this on a "major" network, is the reason those major networks can't get people to watch their networks. They have no guts to put anything on (even news) that is even mildly contraversal, or really just has a point of view that differs from the two or three that they currently provide (for example, the view that law enforcement always works). And so they continue to lose viewership across the board - but especially in my demographic (I'm 27).
Give it a few years, or a decade or so. I think then we'll be able to watch shows that cover the larger questions about what makes a society great - fiction and non-fiction, in the way that BSG does so well. It'll take the passing of the Milton Friedman "free market" above all else - including society - attitude, to get entertainment and news that'll interest the post boomers.
Even if you could review the source code, there would still be no way for you to validate that the machines running on election day, are running code that was compiled from the source code you reviewed.
In other words, you can't look in the machine as see what it's doing.
Paper trails are useless, since you can't invoke them unless there is a good enough reason to do so (close enough election usually 1% or so - not a big deal really, just set your machines to steal more than 3%).
At the end of the day, the only difference between hand counted paper ballot voting, and electronic machine counted voting, is how hard the election is to steal. With hand counted paper, you need a lot of individuals all working together, at various levels during the tallying period to do it. With electronic machines, you just need one well positioned operative.
Are you responders economic libertarians or social libertarians? I don't want the government telling me what I can or cannot do any more than the next guy - I guess that makes me descriptively a social libertarian. If you think you need both to have either, you need to re-read the parent post, as Spun got it completely right. You cannot have social liberty without a fairer distribution of wealth - how can you pull yourself up by your boot straps if you have no boots, no money to invest, and no education. The economic libertarians - which is what the Libertarian Party is about - does not support fair distribution of wealth. They only want the governments hands off the economy, and that includes social programs like education and healthcare.
Please pay closer attention. Read some debates with real libertarian candidates, and see what they are really about. I suspect, that aside from the meaning of their cleaver name, there is very little that most of us on this forum agree with them about.
Ah, see there was a miscommunication on my part. I didn't say the teacher should talk to the class. I said said the teacher should organize a group discussion and let the students explain why they engaged in the behavior, to understand how that made everyone involved feel, and to try to come up with a better way to deal with the problem the next time.
I bet your teachers never did that - neither did mine, though they did do a lot of finger wagging.
I think it is important who's fault it is though, since it's often the case, that everyone involved, including the bystanders that is at fault.
Also, I knew lots of guys in school that were constantly punished to "deter bad behavior" and you know, it just didn't seem to work. It was always the same guys that got punished, and they eventually dropped out, and some of them are even dead now (I'm 27). They are still belligerent, and never really did figure out how to interact with others. It would have been great if someone could have showed them how.
I was sincere about that book recommendation (They Don't Like Me). The whole book is written in kind of a journal like way, where she describes the events of a school year as she tried to implement the "You can't say, they can't play" rule set, which she herself didn't think would work at the beginning. Needless to say, her mind was changed by the end.
Also, this kind of policy has to be introduced early in a child's social experience, IMO. I'd say pre-K to 1st grade. I'm not sure it would have as great an affect on older school kids, for all the reasons you described. But we have to teach these kids how to act like civilized human beings, especially if they are not learning it at home.
I agree with you for the most part, but in that book I cited, they point out that while the bully may be the aggressor, the situation that lead to bullying is not always his or fault entirely.
The solution offered in this book, is to engage the entire class in problem solving exercises, so that all involved (bully, bullied, and all bystanders - all of whom are affected) can have some understanding of why this happened, as well as have some input into a better way to respond to similar situations in the future. And all the while they are learning to think critically about these kinds of problems, rather then just getting angry and remaining clueless about how to deal with the frustrations and fears that lead to bullying in the first place.
You are correct that this has to be dealt with head on, every time it happens. The kids - all who are involved - have to learn how better to handle a situation that could escalate into full blown bullying.
For another reference, check out "You Can't Say You Can't Play" which is the book that describes the techniques that Jane Katch from They Don't Like Me implemented in her preschool class.
As a parent I disagree with your statement, on it's face. Sure, it's my responsibility to teach my children to do the right thing, and I surely do that to the best of my ability.
Still, it remains fact that not all kids have parents that are going to teach vital life skills, like how to organize, study, and get along with others. It remains fact that the rest of us, and our children still have to deal with these less than prepared people, and their children. And it remains fact, that schools can and should do something about it.
In an ideal world, parents would all do the right thing. In reality, many of them are not prepared for the task, and could use a little help. For the sake of the rest of us, and for their sake, I think we should address that reality.
Modern politics is just too bizarre. The Republicans used to be the ones who were for less government involvement in an individuals life, then the Democrats appeared to have taken up that flag, but now with the National ID card (papers please), both parties seem to be endorsing this movement.
For all you extreme left wing whakos start hollering, think about this: How much longer will it be until we have to present a National ID card to take out a loan, open a bank account, cross state lines, and more? Already it is being proposed that you will not be able to board a plane unless you have a National ID card. So, what about those who can afford their own planes? Will they be allowed more anonymity than those with fewer resources? What about purchasing items like automobiles? Those who can afford to pay cash for an automobile in its entirety would be able to do so while those who have to take out a loan are again restricted to using a bank and thus the National ID card again. How about healthcare? Those that can afford to pay for services completely will not have to worry about health care insurance and therefore will not be tracked.
Before any of you ultra-right wing neocon folks start bashing me for this, how about realizing that a National ID card will essentially enable all sorts of purchase related tracking to take place. You can now welcome federally mandated and controlled tracking and access to guns. For example, when other states decide to buy into the fear and make.50 cal rifles illegal, they will be able to track purchases of ammunition and deliver jack-booted thugs to your door to take you away, or at the very least, prohibit you from doing any business across state lines or within states that ban those rifles if politicians decide to play that game against individuals. You can also kiss any anonymity away when dealing with private corporations as the National ID card will enable any and all transactions through banks, individuals and more to be closely monitored.
What happened to common sense and the political middle road?
There's a couple of points here.
1. You already need a state ID for many of those things you described. I don't see a Federal ID as all that different. The problem seems to be the requirement to prove who you are in general, if I read the subtext of your post correctly. The source of the required papers, the state or the federal government in my view would be a secondary matter.
2. You seem to be identifying the wrong problem as it relates to the power of money. There was a time when many people could by a car outright, not just the privileged few. But these days, it's rare for an individual to be able to pull something like that off. So isn't the problem really the lack of wealth in the hands of the many, and the high concentration of wealth in the hands of the very few?
If the scientist trades his/her credibility to create a fraudalent attack on the climate report that's unethical, but the fault of the scientist - not the bounty.
You complain about ideological motivation, yet you yourself have fallen victim to it. Your ideal says that scientists should not be subject to the reality of human nature, greed being part of that nature, and that those who take advantage of it should not be held accountable for their part.
That is absurd. If someone wants to kill a man, and hires a hitman to do it, you can bet he is going to jail for conspiracy to commit murder (well if he's caught anyway).
I'm not saying that bribing a scientist is the same as murder. I am saying that paying someone to misrepresent the truth doesn't let you off the hook, just because the payee was willing to do it.
This could be seen as a good first step, but I hope no one forgets that there is still likely to be a single, or very small number of points of failure for this kind of system.
Paper trails are nice, but are useless if enough of the vote is stolen to prohibit a recount (greater than n%). In the scan card system, the figures are still tallied electronically (and no one will check the counters), and then wired to a central system.
This means it's easy for a single person or small number of people to skew an election. The best form of voting is the one that requires the most work to skew, and that means hand counted paper ballots.
Somewhere in this whole electronic voting debate, the simple basic fact about humanity, that they will cheat to win, has been forgotten. This debate aught to be centered around which form of voting makes it hardest to cheat.
On a related note, to the NAACP, who has supported electronic voting, I have to ask - why do you think electronic voting reduces intimidation of black voters. The answer - because they aren't going to count their votes anyway, because with electronic voting it's easy to steal the election.
I think the point is that well funded Astroturfing can have a substantial impact on various political issues. The history of this particular bill proves that.
And this would not have "regulated political speech" - that line is well framed spin/propaganda (and if you were paid, it'd be actual astroturfing).
It would have "regulated paid opinion mongering", something that is done in every other publishing medium, and done for good reason.
Sorry, Joe, for the mess. The RIAA would not apologize. They don't seem to care about individual injustice - only making their authoritarian point that they are in charge, and everyone else is not. Otherwise they'd be more concerned about suing for the actual cost of a confirmed collection of pirated material, rather than the list of items that tend to exceed actual evidence.
I think when it comes to making sure companies don't destroy society, that's exactly what governments are meant to deal with. So I say good for the Gates Foundation, let them keep their investments, and we can all keep ours too.
The markets have no values, have no morals - markets favor winners, and couldn't care less about fairness. These concepts are the domain of governments, and it's up to governments to make sure the rules are set, fair and adhered to, and to companies that step out of line, in appropriate ways.
We are told that "the markets" will some how fix this up, and everything will turn out great in the end. It's a fantasy, and we need to stop pretending there are negative consequences where there are none for these companies. The right thing for the Gates Foundation and for the rest of to do, is to push the governments of the world to set the right law, regulations and oversite and then watch them to make sure they follow through.
This is not a problem that can be addressed within the economic branch of society - a branch which is often only concerned with the impact of its action over the next single quarter. It has to be addressed through government - and preferably, through government by the people.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure about the long term viability of a kind of a system where rights are provided not by the guarantee law, but by the possible benevolence of individuals or private groups. I'd be the first person to cut down broad black and white distinctions in most political debates, but without law, and without guaranteed access to legal protection (habeas corpus - recently no longer guaranteed by the Patriot act, in case you missed that), all you have is a system where the poor must ask for permission or funds from the local benevolent group that might be there, and might be willing to help, in order to exercise the right to vote.
I always find it helpful to put myself in the situation of the people affected by the policy I'm discussing, and maybe you have, and maybe you are OK with asking - someone - for permission or funds to vote. I'm not.
When it comes to rights it is black and white. You either have guaranteed rights, or their not guaranteed and you have none.
So rather than relying on fair legal rules, homeless people should rely on the benevolence of other people? A nation of laws or a nation of people. You decide.
I assumed the "this" in "All this is is another grab for power and money" was referring to the post text that was quoted immediately before it, and I was right to do so. Further, you confirmed that assumption with your reply to my original question, when you attempted to defend your position. It's odd for you to now claim that you didn't say that I posted about a power grab, when it seems - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that simple logical interpretation shows that you did.
And you still didn't answer who exactly is grabbing the power from who. Upon rereading your original post, I guess I could see how you would think that a progressive tax is a grab at the power that comes with large amounts of money in the hands of the few - and frankly, I do think there aught to be a check on the power that money grants. It isn't just government that has the power to limit your freedom. Just ask anyone who has seen a third world sweat shop, or read about robber baron slums and sweatshops from our own history.
I really want to understand your position, but you seem to giving me a vague kind of circular reasoning - you said that I posted about a grab for money and power, and then when I asked who you thought were grabbing for that power, you answered; those who want to tax. Do you see the problem with that odd reasoning?
So I'll give you multiple choice, maybe. Who out of the following, is trying to grab for power, by my suggestion that we move the point of taxation to the top, rather than at the bottom:
* Corporations
* Poor People
* A vast left wing conspiracy
* A vast right wing conspiracy
* Rush Limbaugh
* Jack Thompson
* Democrats
* Republicans
* Old People
* Young People
* Mexicans
* Insert Other _______
I really do want to understand your position, especially as your position seems to resonate here on slashdot. Although the above is a bit glib, I think it demonstrates my point, that you didn't really answer my question about who exactly is trying to grab for power in my previous suggestion.
Just to add more to my original position, I would suggest that historically, the first three times the income tax was introduced (repealed after the first two times), it only taxed the top 5%. The first time it was Lincoln, and the third time it was F.D.R. originally to pay for the war, but then made permanent later. So there's my historical precedence for my position. What is your historical precedent for your accused power grab?
As far as I can tell, since we've been removing corporate taxes and weakening the kinds of taxes that those who run corporations would pay (taxes on the interest made by investments for example, the inappropriately marketed "Death Tax"), we've seen a stagnating increase (even a small decrease recently) in the middle income in the U.S., and an unbelievable ballooning of corporate income, and of the incomes of those who run them.
Are you happy with the practical implications of that kind of concentration of wealth? I hope you are in that upper income group if you are.
Does that qualify as a "power grab". I guess it does, if you believe that money equals power.
Despite all this extra information here, what I originally proposed did nothing to tax corporations more. What I originally suggested, was simply a more efficient want to tax the same money, in a different way, that would be much easier - and cheaper - to run. Rather than burdening every transaction made at the point of sale (in this case, the website), you would simply tax the income that the company makes on those transactions instead.
It's the same money being taxed, no more and no less. How could that possibly be considered a grab for money or power by anyone? I'd really like to know.
Who is grabbing for power, and what power are they taking away from who?
I will admit they deserve their fair share of blame, but isn't usually republicans - like George Bush - who tend to prefer high maintenance, regressive point of sales and usage taxes systems, over more simple and progressive corporate income tax systems? And Aren't they both taxing the same money at the end of the quarter anyway?
It's odd that they would prefer to tax the individual at the point of sale, rather than just taxing the income of the companies selling stuff online (like Amazon). It seems it would be significantly cheaper - as far as overhead costs go - to regulate the few at the top, as apposed to the many at the bottom. It's also effectively the same transactions that are being taxed (you get it from the income at the top, rather than the transaction at the bottom - but it's the same money).
I actually think the fix is kinda simple. Simply ban "trade secret" patents (patents where you don't have to demonstrate an implementation). Since software is implemented in the form of source code, you should have to show the source code (implementation) in order to get a patent on it. This would protect specifically written software as if it were an invention, but would not be so broad that it could stop someone from implementing the basic idea (algorithm - I suppose we need a legal definition for that too), which should not be patentable in the first place, which uses a different implementation (meaning different source code).
From the uspto faq:
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.Why do anti OSS guys always compare Linux to communism? I could see if all software was required by law to be open source, but it isn't required, and it generally isn't in practice. The way things are today, it's much more like public property. The most mature, basic elements of computing are those that are most likely to be open sourced - things like the operating system kernel, the WebBrowser and the other things that are too vital to healthy economic and social function.
When it comes to less mature, or less vital software, like various very company specific IT needs, or VOIP tech, or entertainment software like 3D engines, these things tend to be proprietary technology, and there are still OSS stuff playing catch up with them.
Also, there are real financial benefits to opening up the source of a very large, mature proprietary code base, that removes the religious aspects of any argument against OSS. Does it really make sense for Microsoft to spend $6 billion on what ended up being a very incremental update to Windows with Vista? They could have opened up some or all of the source, and turned it over to their partners, customers and the OSS "community" - all of whom have a great vested interest in the success of the platform(s) - for maintenance and spent that money on some real advances in tech and R&D, rather than just on the great deal of overhead it takes to maintain such an enormous code base. They could probably even keep their support contracts with the various OEMs out there, and maybe attract some new OEMs with that new tech they get from all their new R&D. There's nothing "religious" about that argument, not that I can see.
It's awesome that there can be forward progress in those nations, as it was great when very similar things happened here in the U.S. My hope is that we'll find a way to continue to lift those third world populations further out of poverty, while ensuring that their new situation will be stable into the future. Any gains they make will be lost, if the western-run shops pull out at the first sign of cheaper labor. It would also be great if the west could do this without sacrificing the progress we have made here in our own history.
> These have existed [in the bible] more or less unchanged for a couple thousand years.
LOL - next you'll claim it was in English that whole time, or that it was written entirely by one man or god all those thousand years ago. Seemingly smart people (judging by your other posts, you may be one of them) tend to give way too much credit to "the good book's" intentions. At some point, we are all going to have to admit that the thing was pieced together for largely political ends, and that its basic intent may or may not have been all that benevolent the countless times it has been revised, localized and translated.
Miyamato said he tries to make new experiences fun. Bungies says they can copy Miyamato any day. I think we know who missed the point.
The fact that a show can't be as edgy as this on a "major" network, is the reason those major networks can't get people to watch their networks. They have no guts to put anything on (even news) that is even mildly contraversal, or really just has a point of view that differs from the two or three that they currently provide (for example, the view that law enforcement always works). And so they continue to lose viewership across the board - but especially in my demographic (I'm 27).
Give it a few years, or a decade or so. I think then we'll be able to watch shows that cover the larger questions about what makes a society great - fiction and non-fiction, in the way that BSG does so well. It'll take the passing of the Milton Friedman "free market" above all else - including society - attitude, to get entertainment and news that'll interest the post boomers.
Even if you could review the source code, there would still be no way for you to validate that the machines running on election day, are running code that was compiled from the source code you reviewed.
In other words, you can't look in the machine as see what it's doing.
Paper trails are useless, since you can't invoke them unless there is a good enough reason to do so (close enough election usually 1% or so - not a big deal really, just set your machines to steal more than 3%).
At the end of the day, the only difference between hand counted paper ballot voting, and electronic machine counted voting, is how hard the election is to steal. With hand counted paper, you need a lot of individuals all working together, at various levels during the tallying period to do it. With electronic machines, you just need one well positioned operative.
Are you responders economic libertarians or social libertarians? I don't want the government telling me what I can or cannot do any more than the next guy - I guess that makes me descriptively a social libertarian. If you think you need both to have either, you need to re-read the parent post, as Spun got it completely right. You cannot have social liberty without a fairer distribution of wealth - how can you pull yourself up by your boot straps if you have no boots, no money to invest, and no education. The economic libertarians - which is what the Libertarian Party is about - does not support fair distribution of wealth. They only want the governments hands off the economy, and that includes social programs like education and healthcare.
Please pay closer attention. Read some debates with real libertarian candidates, and see what they are really about. I suspect, that aside from the meaning of their cleaver name, there is very little that most of us on this forum agree with them about.
Ah, see there was a miscommunication on my part. I didn't say the teacher should talk to the class. I said said the teacher should organize a group discussion and let the students explain why they engaged in the behavior, to understand how that made everyone involved feel, and to try to come up with a better way to deal with the problem the next time.
I bet your teachers never did that - neither did mine, though they did do a lot of finger wagging.
I think it is important who's fault it is though, since it's often the case, that everyone involved, including the bystanders that is at fault.
Also, I knew lots of guys in school that were constantly punished to "deter bad behavior" and you know, it just didn't seem to work. It was always the same guys that got punished, and they eventually dropped out, and some of them are even dead now (I'm 27). They are still belligerent, and never really did figure out how to interact with others. It would have been great if someone could have showed them how.
I was sincere about that book recommendation (They Don't Like Me). The whole book is written in kind of a journal like way, where she describes the events of a school year as she tried to implement the "You can't say, they can't play" rule set, which she herself didn't think would work at the beginning. Needless to say, her mind was changed by the end.
Also, this kind of policy has to be introduced early in a child's social experience, IMO. I'd say pre-K to 1st grade. I'm not sure it would have as great an affect on older school kids, for all the reasons you described. But we have to teach these kids how to act like civilized human beings, especially if they are not learning it at home.
I agree with you for the most part, but in that book I cited, they point out that while the bully may be the aggressor, the situation that lead to bullying is not always his or fault entirely.
The solution offered in this book, is to engage the entire class in problem solving exercises, so that all involved (bully, bullied, and all bystanders - all of whom are affected) can have some understanding of why this happened, as well as have some input into a better way to respond to similar situations in the future. And all the while they are learning to think critically about these kinds of problems, rather then just getting angry and remaining clueless about how to deal with the frustrations and fears that lead to bullying in the first place.
You are correct that this has to be dealt with head on, every time it happens. The kids - all who are involved - have to learn how better to handle a situation that could escalate into full blown bullying.
For another reference, check out "You Can't Say You Can't Play" which is the book that describes the techniques that Jane Katch from They Don't Like Me implemented in her preschool class.
As a parent I disagree with your statement, on it's face. Sure, it's my responsibility to teach my children to do the right thing, and I surely do that to the best of my ability.
Still, it remains fact that not all kids have parents that are going to teach vital life skills, like how to organize, study, and get along with others. It remains fact that the rest of us, and our children still have to deal with these less than prepared people, and their children. And it remains fact, that schools can and should do something about it.
We just need the political and social will to make policies that teach this stuff. There are plenty of books on the subject, some even demonstrating what can be done by both teachers and parents, such as "They Don't Like Me: Lessons on Bullying and Teasing from a Preschool Classroom".
In an ideal world, parents would all do the right thing. In reality, many of them are not prepared for the task, and could use a little help. For the sake of the rest of us, and for their sake, I think we should address that reality.
For all you extreme left wing whakos start hollering, think about this: How much longer will it be until we have to present a National ID card to take out a loan, open a bank account, cross state lines, and more? Already it is being proposed that you will not be able to board a plane unless you have a National ID card. So, what about those who can afford their own planes? Will they be allowed more anonymity than those with fewer resources? What about purchasing items like automobiles? Those who can afford to pay cash for an automobile in its entirety would be able to do so while those who have to take out a loan are again restricted to using a bank and thus the National ID card again. How about healthcare? Those that can afford to pay for services completely will not have to worry about health care insurance and therefore will not be tracked.
Before any of you ultra-right wing neocon folks start bashing me for this, how about realizing that a National ID card will essentially enable all sorts of purchase related tracking to take place. You can now welcome federally mandated and controlled tracking and access to guns. For example, when other states decide to buy into the fear and make
What happened to common sense and the political middle road?
There's a couple of points here.
1. You already need a state ID for many of those things you described. I don't see a Federal ID as all that different. The problem seems to be the requirement to prove who you are in general, if I read the subtext of your post correctly. The source of the required papers, the state or the federal government in my view would be a secondary matter.
2. You seem to be identifying the wrong problem as it relates to the power of money. There was a time when many people could by a car outright, not just the privileged few. But these days, it's rare for an individual to be able to pull something like that off. So isn't the problem really the lack of wealth in the hands of the many, and the high concentration of wealth in the hands of the very few?
You complain about ideological motivation, yet you yourself have fallen victim to it. Your ideal says that scientists should not be subject to the reality of human nature, greed being part of that nature, and that those who take advantage of it should not be held accountable for their part.
That is absurd. If someone wants to kill a man, and hires a hitman to do it, you can bet he is going to jail for conspiracy to commit murder (well if he's caught anyway).
I'm not saying that bribing a scientist is the same as murder. I am saying that paying someone to misrepresent the truth doesn't let you off the hook, just because the payee was willing to do it.
This could be seen as a good first step, but I hope no one forgets that there is still likely to be a single, or very small number of points of failure for this kind of system. Paper trails are nice, but are useless if enough of the vote is stolen to prohibit a recount (greater than n%). In the scan card system, the figures are still tallied electronically (and no one will check the counters), and then wired to a central system. This means it's easy for a single person or small number of people to skew an election. The best form of voting is the one that requires the most work to skew, and that means hand counted paper ballots. Somewhere in this whole electronic voting debate, the simple basic fact about humanity, that they will cheat to win, has been forgotten. This debate aught to be centered around which form of voting makes it hardest to cheat. On a related note, to the NAACP, who has supported electronic voting, I have to ask - why do you think electronic voting reduces intimidation of black voters. The answer - because they aren't going to count their votes anyway, because with electronic voting it's easy to steal the election.
That's good to know! (I didn't mean to offend - it was just an example.)
I think the point is that well funded Astroturfing can have a substantial impact on various political issues. The history of this particular bill proves that.
And this would not have "regulated political speech" - that line is well framed spin/propaganda (and if you were paid, it'd be actual astroturfing).
It would have "regulated paid opinion mongering", something that is done in every other publishing medium, and done for good reason.
I think when it comes to making sure companies don't destroy society, that's exactly what governments are meant to deal with. So I say good for the Gates Foundation, let them keep their investments, and we can all keep ours too. The markets have no values, have no morals - markets favor winners, and couldn't care less about fairness. These concepts are the domain of governments, and it's up to governments to make sure the rules are set, fair and adhered to, and to companies that step out of line, in appropriate ways. We are told that "the markets" will some how fix this up, and everything will turn out great in the end. It's a fantasy, and we need to stop pretending there are negative consequences where there are none for these companies. The right thing for the Gates Foundation and for the rest of to do, is to push the governments of the world to set the right law, regulations and oversite and then watch them to make sure they follow through. This is not a problem that can be addressed within the economic branch of society - a branch which is often only concerned with the impact of its action over the next single quarter. It has to be addressed through government - and preferably, through government by the people. ;-)