liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

[dibl]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

I would be delighted to have the education committees of Congress set national standards for what constitutes an acceptable secondary education in the U.S. But lord help us if civil servants get within a mile of the classroom.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

"... it's simple: McCain was much more qualified to be president than Obama ..."

Yeah, DYK, right, and look how he displayed his bad judgment skills right off the bat: he picked Palin as a running mate! Only someone totally out of touch with any reasonable sense of reality could have done that.

While I [obviously] agree that Palin was a bad choice as his running mate, I understand why McCain did it. The fact was that there was a VERY strong female running for president in the other party, and I think McCain felt pressured to choose a female running mate. His ultimate choice was a very bad one--although MANY people adore Sarah Palin and think she's great--as, surely, there were other Republican females better qualified that he could've picked. But I guess he did what he thought was best, probably wanting to add appeal to younger voters, voters who wanted to see a female in high office, etc.

[SteveRiley]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

As for leaving important decisions up to local governments

That's why I previously offered my amended assertions, where I added the word "state" before the word "government." I sure wish ScottyK would return to the thread. I hope we didn't scare him off -- I'm genuinely interested in his thoughts regarding state-level "one size fits all" legislation.

[Qqmike]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

dibl, sounds like we are on the same page, given what you said in reply #60. I agree about civil servants -- long story -- but I have known many -- taxpayers would be enraged to know what they are paying for and not getting.

I liked McCain until he did the Palin choice. If he wanted a basic female (w/unspecified intellectual capability), why not Paris H. or Kim K?

[dibl]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

dibl, sounds like we are on the same page

Concur, Mike.

BTW, with the benefit of hindsight, I also agree that Hillary Clinton was the best candidate for President in 2008. Unfortunately, she was not on the menu when we went to the ballot box.

[ScottyK]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

As for leaving important decisions up to local governments

That's why I previously offered my amended assertions, where I added the word "state" before the word "government." I sure wish ScottyK would return to the thread. I hope we didn't scare him off -- I'm genuinely interested in his thoughts regarding state-level "one size fits all" legislation.

Nah you didn't scare me off, just a very busy weekend with the family!

Now trying to remember what my points were going to be.

Basically, I don't want a national "one size fits all" government. However I have no problem with a state level "one size fits all", mostly because it's constitutional.

I look at the powers granted to the federal government (which in my opinion has severely overstepped their constitutional powers). Everything else is left up to the states (by the 10th amendment).

So health care, education, social programs; on a state level, go for it.

The state level is more in tuned to what the people want/need, the Feds are not.

Plus the state government more accurately reflect the local population. A House and Senate of a state can more accurately govern at the state level, rather than 535 people represent 300+ million.

Policies and legislation can be made up to more correctly reflect the local population. What's important to me in Oklahoma is not so important to somebody living in New York or Washington.

The beauty of states deciding at the state level what they want is it gives people the option to move if they don't like it.

Don't want government health care? Don't want homosexual marriage? Don't live in Massachusetts.

Don't want strict laws on alcohol, prayers at high school football games? Don't move to Oklahoma.

But we need a Federal government for things like a national defense, negotiate with foreign countries, etc.

So keep things at a state level, and the population will drift and move to the areas that most reflect their values and morals.

[woodsmoke]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

As to McCain and Palin, I formed a tentative conclusion that the "real" powerbrokers in the Republican Party, whoever they may be and I have not clue, and this may just be a conspiracy theory, but I just couldn't understand how McCain came off as such a doof when he is evidently a smart man in the rest of his career.

My conspiracy theory conclusion was the the real powerbrokers decided to let Obama win and that then the country would get to really see what a complete "liberal progressive" agenda would look like.

And then, the country, which is tipping from younger whites to older whites and to hispanics would be given a clear choice in the NEXT election.

One path or the other.

But, it seems as if all the Republican candidates can't seem to do anything except form a circular firing squad.

There is the possibility that the "real" candidate just hasn't been moved up yet. and that all of this has been theater to keep the public's mind on the "possible" idea that the Republicans are at least "trying" to provide a full slate of "ideas"/personalities, etc.

I, PERSONALLY think, that if Cain had not blew up with the previous female accusations, again, apparently at least one of them was forwarded by a Repbulican, ... that if Cain and Bachman had ran that they would have pulled away significant numbers of various independent groups and also Democratic groups... but...don't know...

*******************

As to the big discussion of calculus above. If "calculus" was just taught "as calculus" without all of the "math analysis" and other gefelterfarb the "stigma" of it might go away so that the general populace could then have at least some small inkling of integration, differentiation and the setting of limits.

And here is a classic book that would make a perfect introduction but that is not the way of "American Education".....we have to take something that works great and "re-invent" it so that it doesn't work at all.

http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Made-.../dp/0312185480

woodsmoke

[ardvark71]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

dibl, sounds like we are on the same page, given what you said in reply #60. I agree about civil servants -- long story -- but I have known many -- taxpayers would be enraged to know what they are paying for and not getting.

Hi...

In a lot of cases, perhaps, but there are always exceptions. I have dealt with civil servants who took their jobs seriously, cared for those whom they were hired to help and did the best job they could.

There is another factor in government spending that doesn't always get mentioned and that is the vandalism and destruction that some folks cause to public property. When I worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a Park Aide and Laborer between 1992 and 1996, one of my jobs was to repair the fences (mostly barbed wire) that bordered Corps property at the lake I worked at. Along with the fences, we would often have to repair or replace signs that people would shoot up or tear down. At park facilities, it wasn't uncommon to come in one morning and find out that holes were punched into the walls or tiles and urinals were broken in half. Not to mention the paint that would be required to keep up with the graffiti. This was apart from the normal maintenance ( from wear and tear) that is always required for the equipment, facilities and grounds.

Of course, you know who pays for all the labor, parts, supplies and equipment needed to make these repairs, don't you?

Regards...

[Qqmike]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

woodsmoke, The calc book you mentioned,
http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Made-.../dp/0312185480
looks very good (as a first course, OF course). I only read a few pages (at Amazon), how they introduced differentials, but from what I saw, this would be an excellent book for building one's intuition before formalizing limits and such. Of course, I prefer to think of a differential as a linear transformation on a function space, but then that's another story Excellent book.


@ ScottyK, in the spirit of DYK, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Frankly, it makes no logical sense to me at all. Remember, we are no longer a big small country ... and given the state of the world ... and all that ...

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

So keep things at a state level, and the population will drift and move to the areas that most reflect their values and morals.

But once a state makes inroads on something--like declaring that life begins at conception [in a bid to overturn abortion rights], as Mississippi recently tried, and failed, to do--it can weaken federal laws/standards. It's kind of like a flesh-eating virus...

[woodsmoke]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

DYK,
For what might be considered at least half of the U.S. population, if one considers the "historical" situation, "roe v wade" overturned at least 2,000 years of "historical precedent" and it is "continuing to make inroads" to "a 2,000 year old accepted societal norm", rather like a Devil Spawn!

TONGUE IN CHEEK HERE FOLKS!!

Just indicating how "at least" a significant part of society thinks that roe v wade, and other laws, are just flat out wrong.

However, to me, this is soon to become a relatively moot point.

"The morning after pill" has been available in Europe for decades I have opined multiple time that if it were ever actually available here "easily" then the abortion thing goes away because no "hospital" abortion would be necessary.

A new "morning after pill" was approved by the FDA in August and now is being ballyhooed loudly and stridently by Planned Parenthood and is being advertised as for sale by "a pharmacist". Previous versions were available by perscription back in 1999.

So, here we see..... a "weakening" of federal laws, and in the FDA EVEN by maybe a VIRUS!!

So....now the woman does not have to go to a hospital or back ally to get an abortion and, to me....

very soon....the whole abortion thing will probably go away.

But the conservatives will have STDS, drugs and rock 'n roll!!!

just some thought folks just some thoughts.

woodsmoke

woodsmoke

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

DYK,
For what might be considered at least half of the U.S. population, if one considers the "historical" situation, "roe v wade" overturned at least 2,000 years of "historical precedent" and it is "continuing to make inroads" to "a 2,000 year old accepted societal norm", rather like a Devil Spawn!

TONGUE IN CHEEK HERE FOLKS!!

Got it.

Just indicating how "at least" a significant part of society thinks that roe v wade, and other laws, are just flat out wrong.

But the people who are against abortion tend to have non-scientific, religious-based opinions (and they ARE opinions, not facts) as their argument. For example, they think human life begins at conception, hence ANY abortion, no matter how early, is tantamount to committing murder. Of course, the facts--things such as zygotes not having developed central nervous systems and, therefore, no possibility of conscious thought or awareness--don't matter to them. Their hysterics include things like the long-ago-debunked "Silent Scream" film, insisting that zygotes and embryos are capable of things that are PHYSICALLY impossible at their stage of development. In all the years I've been actively and--as might be expected!--vocally pro-choice I have yet to hear a single RATIONAL anti-abortion argument. (Disclaimer: I do NOT believe in late term abortions unless medically necessary, nor do I believe that abortion should be used as birth control. IOW, when I hear of a woman who's had multiple abortions...I get really pissed off. Like, didn't you LEARN anything the first time? or the second time? or...?)

However, to me, this is soon to become a relatively moot point.

"The morning after pill" has been available in Europe for decades I have opined multiple time that if it were ever actually available here "easily" then the abortion thing goes away because no "hospital" abortion would be necessary.

A new "morning after pill" was approved by the FDA in August and now is being ballyhooed loudly and stridently by Planned Parenthood and is being advertised as for sale by "a pharmacist". Previous versions were available by perscription back in 1999.

So, here we see..... a "weakening" of federal laws, and in the FDA EVEN by maybe a VIRUS!!

So....now the woman does not have to go to a hospital or back ally to get an abortion and, to me....

very soon....the whole abortion thing will probably go away.

No, it won't. Sorry, but you're wrong about the morning after pill. It does NOT cause a pregnancy to end. What it DOES do is prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Therefore, it must be taken within a VERY small window after a sexual encounter that may result in pregnancy. Here's why it cannot/will not eliminate the need for abortion: Say that a woman has protected sex and isn't aware that the condom broke. Why would she take the morning after pill the next day? Right, she wouldn't. But weeks, or even months (if she's irregular like I was), later she misses a period and THEN thinks she may have gotten pregnant. By this time it's LONG past the window for taking the morning after pill, so if she is pregnant and wants to not be pregnant, her only choice is abortion.

But the conservatives will have STDS, drugs and rock 'n roll!!!

Indeed they will! And they'll continue trying to control what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms or with their own bodies.

[woodsmoke]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Hi DYK
thanks for the correction and that was a nicely stated post but allow me to joust with one sentence if I may.

DYK wrote:

religious-based opinions (and they ARE opinions, not facts)

I would argue with the PREMISE of the opinion part.

As a setup:

I seriously doubt that anyone here at this forum has actually set foot on the moon.

The only people who KNOW....DIRECTLY that they sat foot on the moon are the men who have actually done so. And, as to the astronomers/technicians who followed the flight for at least part of the mission, even they may have been misled.

We do have as precedent the fellows who painted "men in the moon" on the ends of telescopes back in the twenties at Luna Park in Coney Island...



Considering the billions of dollars involved the massive military-industrial-politico complex COULD have projected the image on the telescopes and, of course, fed a bogus signal (much as the navy does today to provide practice for radar operators.)

Sooooooo everybody that has not actually set foot on the moon can only have:

a) a "belief" that they were there
b) pass an "opinion" that they were there.

lol all in good fun remember!!

Even the flight controllers have only SECOND HAND information, since they "could" have been talking to a simulator in ...oh don't know....Wasila Alaska!!

The main difference between the "religionists" and the "non-religionists" is that:

a) if the non-religionistists are correct then there is no heaven or hell and no fault no foul for anybody.
b) if the religionists are correct......

then....

BOOOOO!!!!!

The debbil might be standin' behind the non-religionist to GRAB 'em RIGHT NOW!!!!

Soooooo UMMMM since nobody has anything but an OPINION.....maybe it would be better to err on the side of not aborting a foetus, just in case there IS ....

A FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IN THE SKY!!



Since nobody actually KNOWS....there not having been anyone in hell that came back or, aside from the actual astronauts, whether anybody has actually been to the moon either....

And they might have been paid off by the military-industrial-politico-biographical-sci-fi movie maker complex!

Now, after this relatively great expenditure of energy I think the effort requires a sit down with a cool libation to settle my enflamed, some say enfeebled, mind!

woodsmoke

[Qqmike]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

@Woodsmoke --

... And if the "religionists" (to go with you here) are correct, a minimum of half them (I'm being kind) are going straight to "hell," especially of the Christian persuasion, a haven for blazing hypocrites and people who have little to no clue what true Christ-ianity represents or teaches (or what we think it represents, as no one has any clue what Christ actually ever said about anything, if you know the history of how the bible was written/recorded).

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

woodsmoke, the main difference between your example (the moon landing) and mine (abortion) is this: Science/medicine can PROVE that a zygote's central nervous system hasn't developed yet. So the anti-choice zealots who scream about "innocent BAY-BEES being torn apart!!" and suffering horrendous pain and fear are full of crap. They CHOOSE to disregard scientific fact in order to use an otherwise pointless argument against abortion.