So if schools are banning games like tag, could we have an increase in childhood obesity? We should be encouraging children to exercise during recess, not preventing them from doing physical activities entirely. I can't imagine safety being such a huge problem that it justifies this sort of ban.
but they do seem to rail about inflammatory issues, rather than issues that really affect the national economy
Inflammatory issues are probably the only ones that can be altered in the short term. I tend to think that there has to be a lot more to an issue than the fiscal side for any change in government action to be possible. Otherwise people just don't seem to be that interested.
Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?
If you think there are interesting political stories going unseen that would put the Bush administration in a positive light, why don't you submit them to slashdot as new stories?
This is true. One thing I notice when I visit my parents is that the price of gas is mentioned every day. Whenever one of them passes the gas stations on their way home, they report the price to everyone else.
Every election I've voted in has had multiple positions on the ballot. Wouldn't spoiling the ballot invalidate the entire thing? Also, even if you can't spoil an electronic ballot, there should be a write-in option. If you don't consider any of the candidates qualified, can't you just write in "no confidence?" I once considered voting against everyone running for a certain position and worried that if I just left the slot blank it would be considered an error instead of a statement.
If Democrats win in the fall elections and these machines are still being used, I hope there is an uproar. Having both parties feeling that they were hurt by something recently is often the fastest way to convince politicians to fix this sort of problem.
I have never heard that Bill Gates or his foundation worked to shut down companies sending drugs to Africa. The criticisms listed on the wikipedia page (and discussion page) for the foundation relate to social conservatives' complaints about abortion and general questioning of the foundation's finances. A google search also did not turn up anything. Could you provide a source and/or elaborate?
As for the issue of strings attached to charitable giving, I don't think that's really a significant problem. Most people who give to charities have a particular cause in mind when they donate, which is usually expressed by choosing which organization to donate to. They have a very small, practically invisible string attached in that if the charity is ineffective they will stop funding it. However, if a large sum of money is given to a charity at once and the charitable organization doesn't have a concrete plan for what to do with it, the money might be used only on short-term relief when a longer term solution is possible. By retaining a controlling aspect, a donor with a lot of money can better evaluate and respond more quickly to the effects of the money and programs. He can adjust the foundation's giving to expand effective programs, reduce spending on ineffective programs, and target a wide range of problems in a variety of ways. Therefore, for large gifts I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping more control over where the money goes.
As for your final statement, whether or not Steve's philanthropy was more interesting is strictly a matter of opinion. I withhold judgement on how genuine I think Bill's philanthropy is until after Gates' transition to a more philanthropic position in 2008.
As an analogy, most people don't become Catholics because they go to a Catholic church, they go to a Catholic Church because they are Catholics.
I don't think that this is true. After all, wouldn't the best place to learn about Catholic religion be the church itself? The Bible may be a starting point, but it's not all there is to the religion.
I think a lot of people become Catholics because they go to a Catholic church, usually brought by their parents when they are young. Later some of those continue to go to a Catholic church only out of habit, or "because they are Catholics".
At my high school there were many courses offered that might seem unnecessary in an education at first glance. Powerwalking, drafting and a sewing class to name a few. None of these skills "need" to be learned for someone to have a happy, successful life. But the important aspect of these classes was that they were all voluntary. We had opportunities to take a few non-required courses on the side every year, and I think it was unambiguously good for my education.
The important question that we should ask for each subject is not, as an earlier poster mentioned, why teach geography or literature. There are a lot of subjects that are useful and/or interesting enough to merit a course. The question should be "why should we require students to take certain courses over others?" For example, why require that students take geography rather than literature?" Mandating that students take certain courses means that education is more uniform, but it also means that they have less time to explore other subjects.
So in regards to this discussion, ask
What is the goal we want to achieve by teaching evolution (or biology more generally)?
Is that goal important enough to require a course on this?
Is requiring this course the best way to achieve this goal?
Those shouldn't be too difficult for any side of this argument to answer.
Slashdot Mirror
So if schools are banning games like tag, could we have an increase in childhood obesity? We should be encouraging children to exercise during recess, not preventing them from doing physical activities entirely. I can't imagine safety being such a huge problem that it justifies this sort of ban.
Inflammatory issues are probably the only ones that can be altered in the short term. I tend to think that there has to be a lot more to an issue than the fiscal side for any change in government action to be possible. Otherwise people just don't seem to be that interested.
If you think there are interesting political stories going unseen that would put the Bush administration in a positive light, why don't you submit them to slashdot as new stories?
This is true. One thing I notice when I visit my parents is that the price of gas is mentioned every day. Whenever one of them passes the gas stations on their way home, they report the price to everyone else.
Every election I've voted in has had multiple positions on the ballot. Wouldn't spoiling the ballot invalidate the entire thing? Also, even if you can't spoil an electronic ballot, there should be a write-in option. If you don't consider any of the candidates qualified, can't you just write in "no confidence?" I once considered voting against everyone running for a certain position and worried that if I just left the slot blank it would be considered an error instead of a statement.
If Democrats win in the fall elections and these machines are still being used, I hope there is an uproar. Having both parties feeling that they were hurt by something recently is often the fastest way to convince politicians to fix this sort of problem.
I have never heard that Bill Gates or his foundation worked to shut down companies sending drugs to Africa. The criticisms listed on the wikipedia page (and discussion page) for the foundation relate to social conservatives' complaints about abortion and general questioning of the foundation's finances. A google search also did not turn up anything. Could you provide a source and/or elaborate?
As for the issue of strings attached to charitable giving, I don't think that's really a significant problem. Most people who give to charities have a particular cause in mind when they donate, which is usually expressed by choosing which organization to donate to. They have a very small, practically invisible string attached in that if the charity is ineffective they will stop funding it. However, if a large sum of money is given to a charity at once and the charitable organization doesn't have a concrete plan for what to do with it, the money might be used only on short-term relief when a longer term solution is possible. By retaining a controlling aspect, a donor with a lot of money can better evaluate and respond more quickly to the effects of the money and programs. He can adjust the foundation's giving to expand effective programs, reduce spending on ineffective programs, and target a wide range of problems in a variety of ways. Therefore, for large gifts I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping more control over where the money goes.
As for your final statement, whether or not Steve's philanthropy was more interesting is strictly a matter of opinion. I withhold judgement on how genuine I think Bill's philanthropy is until after Gates' transition to a more philanthropic position in 2008.
It's possible to look up to both of them. Gates has done quite a bit of philanthropic work in the past few years.
The important question that we should ask for each subject is not, as an earlier poster mentioned, why teach geography or literature. There are a lot of subjects that are useful and/or interesting enough to merit a course. The question should be "why should we require students to take certain courses over others?" For example, why require that students take geography rather than literature?" Mandating that students take certain courses means that education is more uniform, but it also means that they have less time to explore other subjects.
So in regards to this discussion, ask
- What is the goal we want to achieve by teaching evolution (or biology more generally)?
- Is that goal important enough to require a course on this?
- Is requiring this course the best way to achieve this goal?
Those shouldn't be too difficult for any side of this argument to answer.