If you were in charge...
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 3, 2005 08:30
VIEWED: 14890
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:So the government should adopt an atheist position? The problem is that atheism is as much a religion. By interpreting the first amendment as meaning that the government must adopt atheism, you are effectively making atheism a state-sanction religion, which is precisely what the anti-establishment clause forbids. It’s a pickle.
Originally posted by Kirikoli:
The point is not whether or not the administration should be democratic but that the administration should have nothing to do with it. The 1st amendment, as you well know, guarentees the freedom of religion (AND the freedom not to have any religion at all). By granting the administration (a representative of all people) the right to incorporate religion into its symbols, its leaders, and its laws on the basis of a majority rules mentality violates the very point of having a government of all the people, not to mention the rights of the minority.
Quote:Alright-y, I'll join in. Idealisms are always easy; everyone loves a terse, wholly meaningless "solution" where all they have to do is agree. I think we should fix all schools too. Sadly however, if we were actually going to do that, we would have already. “Fixing” education is just something we tell ourselves we’re going to do, not something we actually do. Meanwhile American children are attending schools that might be considered suitable education facility in the Bekah Valley. I think vouchers are the only solution that will work, because it takes the decision out of the hands of the politicians and the teachers’ unions. The prospect of losing students and money will be a much stronger motivator for improvement then giving them more money for not improving, and if nothing else, it gives children on opportunity at a better education.
Originally posted by Kirikoli:
I still don't understand what, if anything, vouchers would accomplish, except to overrun private schools and take people's tax money away from funding public schools. I am against vouchers in general, btw. I believe we need to fix all schools, not just provide the opportunity for some to commute as a poor excuse for a solution.
Quote:I think it depends a lot on the century and region. Latin has not existed unchanged. It has many variations. But I’m not familiar enough with it to be able to critique the grammar or know if it is idiomatic. Sorry.
Originally posted by Kirikoli:
Do you actually know Latin? Everytime I look at "desiderat" it bothers me because it looks like it should be pluperfect and yet that translation would be awkward. Perhaps you would know if it is idiomatic? "Praeparet" bothers me too because we usually use paro, parare for prepare. Stupid jussive subjunctives.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, we made it a few days on the withholding judgement part. Not bad. Looks like the cat is out of the bag now, however.
SgtGump: I think your 40% figure is spot on. Me? I'd just flip a coin. 
StarrBaby: Part of it is, IMO, what ChrisIsAll stated (charge what the market will bear). Another part is to recoup advertising costs. There's been a huge increase in prescription drug advertising (television and print). A third part is that the salespeople are spending a lot of money talking to doctors promoting the drugs. A fourth part is that they are trying to get as much money as possible before the patent runs out. The cost of generic drugs in the US is actually less than other countries (if I remember correctly). A fifth part is to pay for research. A lot of companies will come up with a solution to a problem that isn't really a problem, create a marketing campaign to convince the public that this is a problem and their drug is the best solution, wine and dine doctors so that they recommend the particular drug, and then try to sell as much as possible before the patent runs out and generic drug manufacturers get in on the action.
Which leads me to another thing I'd do if I was in charge: No advertising for prescription drugs (My grandparents send me a yearly subscription to Guideposts - which is targetted at an older demographic - and I'm constantly amazed at the percentage of each issue that is prescription drug advertisements.).
ImEarly: No wonder there's such a big flap over drilling under ANWR. There's chocolate under there!! 
At least you left Hawaii (although I'm probably in your stomach right now - it's hard to tell if you got my section of California or not on your first bite).
ConnorFlynn: Where can I contribute for the Joss Whedon statue in my city?
It looks like the topic of resonance is going to be education so I'll just throw out some of my proposed changes in that area.
1. Every kid would be required to listen to (if available), memorize the words to, and sing the following songs (not an exhaustive list): The Pill by Loretta Lynn; This Land is Your Land (all verses) by Woody Guthrie; a smattering of Negro Spirituals, or even Marching Song of the First Arkansas (Colored) Regiment . Extra Credit: Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie.
2. Every kid would be required to listen to recordings of the following speeches: FDR's declaration of war with Japan, Reagan's Berlin Wall, MLK Jr's I have a dream, Malcolm X's By any means necessary (I had no idea he was talking about defending the right to vote until I heard the entire speech), JFK's inaugural address, and anything done by Churchill (My personal favorite is the End of the Beginning).
3. Required reading: Ernie Pyle's dispatches.
4. American humorist/philosophers that would be studied: Will Rogers and Mark Twain.
5. Active and Collaborative Learning.
6. Project: Interview someone who grew up during the Depression.
7. Build something. Take something apart. Draw.
* editted to add: How did the margins get so big?
** editted to add: I've long been fascinated about the origins of the Pledge of Allegiance (written by a socialist minister). Were you aware that the "under God" portion was added in the fifties following a campaign - part of a larger effort to contrast our country with the godless Soviet Union? Or that the original salute was done stiff-armed (this went out of style after the Nazi party used the exact same salute)?
---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did I ruin the withholding judgment thing? Sorry. I wasn’t thinking. Sometimes I’m too opinionated for my own good. 
Quote:Yes.
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
* editted to add: How did the margins get so big?
** editted to add: I've long been fascinated about the origins of the Pledge of Allegiance (written by a socialist minister). Were you aware that the "under God" portion was added in the fifties following a campaign - part of a larger effort to contrast our country with the godless Soviet Union? Or that the original salute was done stiff-armed (this went out of style after the Nazi party used the exact same salute)?
No. But it doesn’t surprise me. The salute was adopted by the Nazis just like the swastika.
NATIONAL DEFENSE:
Citizenship at the federal level should be contingent upon successful completion of a 2 to 4 year military/government enlistment including proper use of a military rifle. States may also place such a burden on state citizenship.
All men (and women if they choose) between the ages of 18 and 30 who are citizens should be required to own and maintain a rifle unless they lose citizenship or can show reason why ownership of said rifle constitutes a peacetime hardship.
All such men and women will be required to use said rifle in the event of an invasion on US soil by a foreign entity.
Illegal use of said rifle may be a capital offense.
Individuals who are killed or hurt in the act of a committing a crime involving the illegal break-in of a private residence loose all rights to sue their intended victim. The victims of said crime may, at their discretion, kill or hurt aforementioned invader at anytime from the point of break-in to the point at which the criminal flees. The victim is not required to show that they had reasonable cause to believe that their lives were in danger.
Most gun control laws should be eliminated.
The next time some Canadian tries to paint the US as a fascist war-mongering nation, the entire US military including those currently stationed abroad will be deployed to the Canadian/American border, following which a massive air assault and ground invasion will establish (hours later) Canada as the 51st US state. The US will then eliminate states rights, mark off the 2nd Amendment, eliminate Christian symbolism, encourage secularism with an emphasis on some “new-age” pagan belief, socialize healthcare, increase taxes on the wealthy, keep social security ‘unprivatized,’ declare ourselves a “national socialism” and say things like it is “the duty of the state to provide for the individual.” Then we will begin to jail Catholic priests and systematically eliminate Jews and anyone else with a decided conservative opinion. Finally, we will reign in those evil corporations until they are firmly under government control, thereby finalizing our transition from a free capitalist and democratic state to a “fascist war-mongering nation.”
Afterwards we will withdraw and redeploy our troops to their previous locations, reestablish previous law, have a hardy laugh and say to the now desolate Canada, “That’s what a fascist war-mongering nations looks like. See the difference.”
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would make citizenship contingent on reading comprehension at the eight grade level. In fact, I would make gun ownership contingent on reading comprehension!
A rifle in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And Finn's comment on atheism being a religion demonstrates my point!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I work my way backwards thru the posts, I have to comment on how much Finn's vision of education sounds like Nazi Germany: uniforms, salutes, discipline, the transmission of traditional wisdom, and all the rest. Sounds very totalitarian. MY vision of education involves more thinking and questioning.
I like Conner's ideas better! Can we vote?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So the government should adopt an atheist position? The problem is that atheism is as much a religion. By interpreting the first amendment as meaning that the government must adopt atheism, you are effectively making atheism a state-sanction religion, which is precisely what the anti-establishment clause forbids. It’s a pickle.
No, the government should definitely not take the atheist position (if you can even define a single position and/or "religion" shared by all atheists, which I would argue you cannot).
I am simply saying that the government should recognize that you cannot force the ideals of one religion on a diverse population to which you can have promised a freedom of religion. This doesn't mean that the government should declare that there is no higher power, just as it should not sanction any one higher power represented by any one religion.
So really, it's not a "pickle" at all. If tomorrow the government made a law that said that all women had to use contraceptives, even when it went against their religion, I would oppose that law as much as I would oppose any law based on religious morals. If tomorrow the government said that all churchs must be closed in accordance with their atheist stance, I would stand opposed right alongside the religious population.
The first amendment was not meant to decide which religion that government should sanction (be it the most popular one or an anti-religion), it was meant to PREVENT the sanctioning of any religion or non-religion (read: atheism) by removing religion from the equation entirely, meaning that everyone is free to whatever religion and that no one is forced into a religion against their will by any law put forth by our government.
Quote:
Alright-y, I'll join in. Idealisms are always easy; everyone loves a terse, wholly meaningless "solution" where all they have to do is agree. I think we should fix all schools too. Sadly however, if we were actually going to do that, we would have already. “Fixing” education is just something we tell ourselves we’re going to do, not something we actually do. Meanwhile American children are attending schools that might be considered suitable education facility in the Bekah Valley. I think vouchers are the only solution that will work, because it takes the decision out of the hands of the politicians and the teachers’ unions. The prospect of losing students and money will be a much stronger motivator for improvement then giving them more money for not improving, and if nothing else, it gives children on opportunity at a better education.
There are two overarching problems with this. One, you underestimate the number of students that are attending terrible schools. My high school ranked second to last on money spent per student in my state. No one gave me a voucher and really, why would they? There was no place for me to go, much less the other 3000 students who were in the same situation. Vouchers are only capable of helping a very small percentage of students who are in the worst situations. But that's not where the problem ends.
The second problem is that the schools you are talking about...the lowest of the low...don't have any money to lose. Public schools below college level do not receive a significant percentage of their funds from their attending students, so losing students would probably help them as far as funding goes (less students to spend money on)...if those students had somewhere to go. If you're talking about state funding being taken from schools for low test scores, this is a vicious cycle...these schools have low test scores BECAUSE they are poor and their teachers sub-par because they are paid terribly...take more money away, you're just helping the problem along.
I am very much a realist and yes, I agree that fixing the education system is idealistic and would have already been done if we could do it without spending money. That is obviously a very idealistic, delusi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Just out of curiosity what would that "Basic Standard of Living" mean exactly?
a basic standard of living would simply be that even the poorest would have decent housing, food, and healthcare
the standard wouldn't be homelessnes or third world living conditions..everyone would be gauranteed at least a decent safe clean place to live, food, and healthcare!!
the quality of a persons life, would actually mean something!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Welcome, PirateJenny. I see you decided to visit a thread where you're not called names and made fun of 'cause you're not old. You take the abuse well. (I don't agree with all of your theories, but you're way more ON the mark than you are off of it)
Stay a while, take a rest. Save your strength before you go back to dukin' it out with them Bush-worshipers.
I'm mostly with ya Chrisisall
LOL
I hear you!!!
what can I say, I'm just me..and I'm going to continue to be me , I'm certainly not going to try to be something I'm not and if someone doesn't like it then they don't have to read my post, its really that simple
I'm not claiming to be the most educated or the most articulate, I know what I know if you know what I mean, and its as simple as that!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No worries, Finn. It looked like we'd about run the course in terms of concept generation so the time for withholding judgement was at an end. I was actually pretty surprised that we made it for four days.
My main goal was just to try an experiment to see what kind of space we could create in terms of proposed solutions. So I was hoping for just a huge number of suggestions (leaving practicality aside for the moment). It's been my experience that the nucleus of creative and realistic solutions are often discovered following the suspension of judgement. I figured (based on the observation that fireflyfans are a pretty diverse bunch representing a shitload of knowledge) we could cast a wide net.
Sometime over the weekend I'll do some content analysis of what we came up with (probably something pretty simple influenced heavily by alcohol: typing up sentence summaries, cutting them out, and then moving them around on a table and grouping them to see what categories drop out). Since we already appear to have gelled around the category of education that's probably where I'll stop. If I were doing this for real we would then negotiate some metrics to apply to some of the more realistic proposals to help in deciding what to move forward on in more detail. That's the point where judgement is brought back in.
Basically, I was just curious to see how well an effective mechanical engineering design process translated to asynchronous political design. I made some initial modifications (no shared definition of the problem space, benchmarking pretty much assumed, etc.) and kind of just jumped straight to the middle of conceptual design.
And I left out the squirt guns.
---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME