America - The Official Thread

[prisonermonkeys]

I think he means the court of public opinion...

I don't think he's going to win there, either ...

 

[Liquid]

I think he means the court of public opinion...

I think you're giving him too much credit.

 

[Dotini]

Conflict between the executive and judicial branches of US government has occurred many times in our troubled history. We may be racing down the slope to war between the branches of government and a civil disorder as well.

Thomas Jefferson not only refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts of President John Adams, his party impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, who had presided over one of the trials.

Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s prohibition against moving the Cherokees out of Georgia to west of the Mississippi, where, according to the Harvard resume of Sen. Warren, one of them bundled fruitfully with one of her ancestors, making her part Cherokee.

When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest the chief justice.

FDR proposed adding six justices to emasculate a Supreme Court of the “nine old men” he reviled for having declared some New Deal schemes unconstitutional.

Read more of Pat Buchanan's blazing and scary insights below. His usual humor seems in short supply today.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-must-break-judicial-power/

 

[Fredzy]

Wow.

I think I'm gonna start my own business and try to pull a Schindler's List type operation to save a couple thousand people from Bannon's impending genocide.

 

[BobK]

bundled fruitfully

Gotta love that phrasing!

 

[Dotini]

Does reality prevent us from having what we want? If so, must we then pay more attention to reality? Is this the same thing as reexamining previously successful lies and myths?

 

[Fredzy]

Does reality prevent us from having what we want? If so, must we then pay more attention to reality? Is this the same thing as reexamining perviously successful lies and myths

I need to talk to this guy, find out how he can sleep, eat and function properly while having such a heavy burden of knowledge in his head. I'm considering a drug or alcohol addiction, but it might interfere with cycling. I'm slow enough as it is.

 

[Danoff]

I disagree, I believe every child deserves the same chance. As parents, most of us work and can't homeschool our kids, most of us are not qualified to do so anyway. So unless you have a degree in education and are able to homeschool, I don't see a point in bringing that up. For the vast majority of us that is simply not an option.

I didn't say homeschool was the only option. I said pay for daycare/school or homeschool or don't have kids. The notion that you're not responsible for providing your children with an education is ridiculous. You're responsible for providing your kid with food, clothing, education, shelter, love, safety, entertainment... everything they need to survive. All of that, love included, is needed.

And there it really is, the truth behind your stance. Let's throw schools, kids and teachers under the bus, cause massive layoffs in underfunded red states by killing off the ED, all so we can teach the bible in school. I do appreciate your honesty though. Most would not openly admit that.

Not quite. Let's throw the department of education under the bus (not kids or teachers) all so that we can NOT teach the bible in school.

Similar argument to I don't have a car, why should I have to pay for roads, which never made sense to me. We pay for public infrastructure because in one way or another we all use it, directly or indirectly, same with public education.

I like fee for service government. Tolls or gas tax are preferable ways of funding public roads. If you don't have a car, live on a farm, provide everything for yourself, can't even be accessed by emergency services, yea I don't see why you should pay for roads.

Saying something is uninformed is not going off. The context was about Washington State receiving funds from fill-in-the-blank-state when the truth is we clearly pay out far more than our share, which I obviously don't consider a bad thing.

It is if it's leaving your schools a mess.

That's not how it works at all. In my opinion investing in our youth's education will provide a brighter future and ensure that American kids will grow up with more opportunities not less. Maybe then we can stop importing skilled foreign labor and hire within because our own kids will be intelligent enough to fill those jobs, but I bet you didn't think of that angle.

Oh I thought of that. My kids will be well educated enough to fill those jobs because I actually care about them and provide them with their education.

 

[eran0004]

It's not that it requires tolerance. It's that it requires you to restrict other people's ability to respond to whatever horrible thing you've chosen to say.

It requires both.

 

[Biggles]

I didn't say homeschool was the only option. I said pay for daycare/school or homeschool or don't have kids. The notion that you're not responsible for providing your children with an education is ridiculous. You're responsible for providing your kid with food, clothing, education, shelter, love, safety, entertainment... everything they need to survive. All of that, love included, is needed.

Oh I thought of that. My kids will be well educated enough to fill those jobs because I actually care about them and provide them with their education.

All fine, in theory. In practice, leaving education as the responsibility of individual parents will result in a widening gap between the haves & have-nots & the US will slip further behind other nations that more aggressively promote quality education for all their children. The idea that growing inequality (in education, as well as wealth) doesn't matter is naive. People get pissed off & react ... as can be seen in the last presidential election.

 

[Joey D]

All fine, in theory. In practice, leaving education as the responsibility of individual parents will result in a widening gap between the haves & have-nots & the US will slip further behind other nations that more aggressively promote quality education for all their children. The idea that growing inequality (in education, as well as wealth) doesn't matter is naive. People get pissed off & react ... as can be seen in the last presidential election.

While I agree some parents won't care, I think most would. I haven't met a parent yet that doesn't want what's best for their child and they will almost always strive to provide the best education they can. If they don't want the best for their child, then they probably shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

And while I do believe that growing inequality is a problem, I don't think it's the government's job to address it. At some point you need to take responsibility for yourself and realize it's not the government's job to hold your hand or make your life easy.

 

[huskeR32]

I haven't met a parent yet that doesn't want what's best for their child and they will almost always strive to provide the best education they can.

I'm not sure this is true at all.

A huge chunk of this country wants, for one example, intelligent design to be included in science curricula.

Teaching children that something utterly unsupported by objective evidence belongs in the same discussion as evolution severely undermines understanding of what the scientific method is, and how to apply it and to think critically.

These parents believe they're looking out for the best interests of their child, while advocating for policies that will leave them without an adequate understanding of fundamental scientific principles.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not sure this is true at all.

A huge chunk of this country wants, for one example, intelligent design to be included in science curricula.

Teaching children that something utterly unsupported by objective evidence belongs in the same discussion as evolution severely undermines understanding of what the scientific method is, and how to apply it and to think critically.

These parents believe they're looking out for the best interests of their child, while advocating for policies that will leave them without an adequate understanding of fundamental scientific principles.

I honestly don't think knowing the difference between evolution and creationism is a make or break thing for most people in our country. You can be plenty intelligent and still hold onto beliefs that are wrong. A good friend of mine is a firm believer evolution is a lie, but he has a doctorate degree in engineering and teaches at Purdue. Working in the medical field I've also come across a number of doctors that take the Bible or Koran literally, but at the same time can perform open heart surgery.

So even if their religious beliefs may be a bit misguided, I still don't think most parents want anything less than the best for their children when it comes to education (or anything for that matter).

 

[huskeR32]

I honestly don't think knowing the difference between evolution and creationism is a make or break thing for most people in our country.

If people want to believe in intelligent design, fine. But they need to understand the scientific method, how evidence obtained using the scientific method supports evolution, and how it does not support intelligent design.

If they have that understanding and still choose to subscribe to religious doctrine, more power to them.

But when parents insist on ID being included in science curricula, it casts doubt in the child's mind about the fundamental science that has allowed us to learn everything we know, to build every thing around us, to find cures and develop medicines... the list goes on and on.

There needs to be a hard line drawn between ideas that are scientifically viable, and those that aren't.

So even if their religious beliefs may be a bit misguided, I still don't think most parents want anything less than the best for their children when it comes to education (or anything for that matter).

As I said, I have no doubt that they believe that what they want is best for their child. It's the second part here...

I haven't met a parent yet that doesn't want what's best for their child and they will almost always strive to provide the best education they can.

...where they inadvertently fall short. Allowing parents to have significant influence over what their kids learn, no matter how well-intentioned that influence might be, is often not the best idea.

 

[Joey D]

If people want to believe in intelligent design, fine. But they need to understand the scientific method, how evidence obtained using the scientific method supports evolution, and how it does not support intelligent design.

If they have that understanding and still choose to subscribe to religious doctrine, more power to them.

But when parents insist on ID being included in science curricula, it casts doubt in the child's mind about the fundamental science that has allowed us to learn everything we know, to build every thing around us, to find cures and develop medicines... the list goes on and on.

There needs to be a hard line drawn between ideas that are scientifically viable, and those that aren't.

I don't think most people need to understand the scientific method to get a good education, it's just not important for a vast majority of the population since they will never encounter it in their workplace.

I do agree that creationism has no place in a science class in an institution that is ran with tax dollars.

As I said, I have no doubt that they believe that what they want is best for their child. It's the second part here...

...where they inadvertently fall short. Allowing parents to have significant influence over what their kids learn, no matter how well-intentioned that influence might be, is often not the best idea.

I still think my original statement holds true, most parents want what's best for their kids. What's best for them is obviously going to be up to interpretation and I'm not sure anyone would be able to agree on what "best" is anyways.

 

[huskeR32]

I don't think most people need to understand the scientific method to get a good education, it's just not important for a vast majority of the population since they will never encounter it in their workplace.

You could say that about most things children learn. So just forget about school altogether?

 

[Joey D]

You could say that about most things children learn. So just forget about school altogether?

Sure, school shouldn't be compulsory for anyone.

 

[Eh Team]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[Danoff]

You could say that about most things children learn. So just forget about school altogether?

No, there's a minimum threshold of education, below which is clearly child abuse. Just like there's a minimum level of human interaction, food, shelter, clothing, etc.

 

[huskeR32]

Sure, school shouldn't be compulsory for anyone.

You can't be serious.

--

No, there's a minimum threshold of education, below which is clearly child abuse. Just like there's a minimum level of human interaction, food, shelter, clothing, etc.

Agreed.

Is a basic understanding of the scientific method included under that threshold?

 

[Joey D]

You can't be serious.

I am.

Don't confuse this with "no one should go to school" because I believe everyone should get some kind of education, but if someone makes the choice not to attend school and instead opt for a different kind of education, who am I to stop them?

 

[Danoff]

Is a basic understanding of the scientific method included under that threshold?

No.

The key point, I think, is the point at which people can function in society and teach themselves. You don't have to know the scientific method to be able to count money, read a book about the scientific method, and communicate with the people around you. I think actually that a huge number of Americans do not have a basic understanding of the scientific method and still manage to live independently.

So basic reading (and comprehension), speech (and comprehension), and math with rudimentary mathematics problem solving skills is probably the minimum. You have to keep in mind, I'm trying to set a standard not just for suburban kids but for the Amish, the Native Americans living on reservations, and people that live off of their own land. As an adult, you need basic skills sufficient to interact with other adults, care for yourself, and the ability to teach yourself.

That's the standard below which I'd be comfortable sending the police to arrest an Amish person for abusing their child.

 

[huskeR32]

I am.

Don't confuse this with "no one should go to school" because I believe everyone should get some kind of education, but if someone makes the choice not to attend school and instead opt for a different kind of education, who am I to stop them?

I didn't infer this from your original post. So I read this...

Sure, school shouldn't be compulsory for anyone.

...as education shouldn't be compulsory for anyone.

I think I'm with you now, though.

--

No.

The key point, I think, is the point at which people can function in society and teach themselves. You don't have to know the scientific method to be able to count money, read a book about the scientific method, and communicate with the people around you. I think actually that a huge number of Americans do not have a basic understanding of the scientific method and still manage to live independently.

I think leaving it up to individuals to teach themselves about science would be a detriment to our society, as it could reduce the number of people who enter scientific fields, thereby risking stagnation in areas like technology and medicine.

 

[Danoff]

I think leaving it up to individuals to teach themselves about science would be a detriment to our society, as it could reduce the number of people who enter scientific fields, thereby risking stagnation in areas like technology and medicine.

It might... that's not the only metric here. We could decide that it would be detrimental to society to allow people to live past 70 and execute everyone that ages beyond that age. We could decide that society would benefit from killing everyone with an IQ below 90. We could decide that society is better by making religion illegal, by making smoking illegal, by making military service compulsory, by making it illegal to own a cat.

A utilitarian approach to society is an immoral one.


Also, we're not talking about leaving it up to individuals to teach themselves about science. We're talking about leaving it up to PARENTS to decide whether to teach their children about science but requiring that the child is capable of learning it once out of their parents' custody.

Edit:

I'm actually a little lost on how you might think I was advocating that everyone get the minimum level of education given that the examples I was giving were about arresting deeply religious off-the-grid people for child abuse for going below that standard. Clearly I don't expect very many kids to even come close to going below the standard, just like the vast majority of parents today find ways to feed and clothe their children. Heck, many parents already shell out for premium education. This is why houses in good school districts are more sought after, and why private schools exist at all.

 

[Biggles]

While I agree some parents won't care, I think most would. I haven't met a parent yet that doesn't want what's best for their child and they will almost always strive to provide the best education they can. If they don't want the best for their child, then they probably shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

And while I do believe that growing inequality is a problem, I don't think it's the government's job to address it. At some point you need to take responsibility for yourself and realize it's not the government's job to hold your hand or make your life easy.

It's not a question of whether the parents want "the best for their child". - it's a question of socioeconomic reality. The idea behind a universal, compulsory education system for all, is to attempt to provide all children with equal opportunity to get ahead & succeed. Clearly, equal opportunity does not exist - a child growing up in a poor white family in Appalachia, or a poor black inner-city family, is not likely to have the same prospects as a child born to wealthy parents in Boston. The child does not get to choose his/her circumstances of birth & the larger community has a vested interest in assisting all citizens to reach their full potential.

It might... that's not the only metric here. We could decide that it would be detrimental to society to allow people to live past 70 and execute everyone that ages beyond that age. We could decide that society would benefit from killing everyone with an IQ below 90. We could decide that society is better by making religion illegal, by making smoking illegal, by making military service compulsory, by making it illegal to own a cat.

I don't think most reasonable people would equate any of those those things to a decision to provide the best possible education for all children.

A utilitarian approach to society is an immoral one.

Sez you. There are countries that are more aggressively promoting education as a priority & devoting public funds for that purpose. You may not care - you'll be able to happily stick with the superiority of your moral principles as other, more "utilitarian" nations overhaul & leave the US behind in educational outcomes, business opportunities & prosperity.

 

[BobK]

@huskeR32, why would a retail clerk, an accountant, an entertainer, a fiction writer, an artist, a professional athlete need to know anything about the scientific method? Why should they even care if it exists or not?

 

[Joey D]

I didn't infer this from your original post. So I read this...

...as education shouldn't be compulsory for anyone.

I think I'm with you now, though.

Sorry, that's my fault for not being clear enough. I believe education is extremely important and I think most people have an internal drive to learn more, traditional school on the other hand is something I think should be left up to the individual. I recognize not everyone learns the same way so alternatives forms of education should always be considered.

It's not a question of whether the parents want "the best for their child". - it's a question of socioeconomic reality. The idea behind a universal, compulsory education system for all, is to attempt to provide all children with equal opportunity to get ahead & succeed. Clearly, equal opportunity does not exist - a child growing up in a poor white family in Appalachia, or a poor black inner-city family, is not likely to have the same prospects as a child born to wealthy parents in Boston. The child does not get to choose his/her circumstances of birth & the larger community has a vested interest in assisting all citizens to reach their full potential.

I don't disagree with you about the socioeconomic playing a huge part in all of that, but why does it need to be equal? Life isn't fair and there's always going to be the "haves" and the "have nots", it's something that we should accept. People who grow up in inner city areas that are typically poorer do have less opportunities over someone who was born into wealth, but that doesn't mean they can't succeed. It will take more way work to achieve that goal and the chance of success is lower, but I don't think it's impossible.

Also, here in the US, there are many scholarships and grants that help those from lower income families get a better education and hopefully land a decent job that allows them to elevate their socioeconomic status. They do take work to get, but they are out there and I know a few people that have taken advantage of them and have gone on to be pretty successful in life.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think most reasonable people would equate any of those those things to a decision to provide the best possible education for all children.

The best possible education for all children would be to shut down society entirely to teach them. All money and effort would go toward teaching children.

Sez you. There are countries that are more aggressively promoting education as a priority & devoting public funds for that purpose. You may not care - you'll be able to happily stick with the superiority of your moral principles as other, more "utilitarian" nations overhaul & leave the US behind in educational outcomes, business opportunities & prosperity.

That's fine. Yes, I'll stick with morality over performance.

I don't disagree with you about the socioeconomic playing a huge part in all of that, but why does it need to be equal? Life isn't fair and there's always going to be the "haves" and the "have nots", it's something that we should accept. People who grow up in inner city areas that are typically poorer do have less opportunities over someone who was born into wealth, but that doesn't mean they can't succeed. It will take more way work to achieve that goal and the chance of success is lower, but I don't think it's impossible.

Also, here in the US, there are many scholarships and grants that help those from lower income families get a better education and hopefully land a decent job that allows them to elevate their socioeconomic status. They do take work to get, but they are out there and I know a few people that have taken advantage of them and have gone on to be pretty successful in life.

More than that, the driver to give your children the best possible start in life is a powerful motivator for people to be productive and work hard.

 

[Imari]

It requires both.

So why is it OK for you to say horrible things but other people not to respond? That seems like a very unbalanced situation. Whoever gets in first is somehow automatically in the right.

I don't think most people need to understand the scientific method to get a good education, it's just not important for a vast majority of the population since they will never encounter it in their workplace.

I think everyone should understand the scientific method, even if they don't exactly call it that. It's the greatest method for problem solving that the human race has come up with. anyone who is any good at their field will use some version of it, whether they've been trained or whether they've come to it through trial and error.

It's not about "science", it's about the ability to think clearly and critically and solve problems to a solution that is demonstrably optimal. Teaching children how to think clearly is probably the single best thing you could teach them.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I doubt it's intended to be a blank cheque to say "New Zealanders are a threat to our country, what with their wacky accents and crazy national animals!"

I imagine that the President still has to demonstrate a reasonable basis for a belief that any class of aliens banned are actually detrimental to the US. In times of war or crisis it's important that the President has the authority to act quickly in the nation's interest, but that doesn't mean that those decisions shouldn't be properly scrutinised and justified when able.

According to the law I quoted, the question is "Whenever the President finds". You and I, or the courts for that matter, aren't privy to the intelligence information that the President is. The law clearly says it is up to him.

This law was written by one of the three branches of our government, the Legislature. It was signed into law by The executive branch (the President), second of our three branches of government. Now comes the 9th Circuit, a tiny part of the third branch, the judiciary, and they think they trump the other two branches?

Immigration in the US is controlled by the Legislature. For whatever reason, the Legislature decided to give this control to the President. And for whatever reason the President found the need to ban travel from some countries.

Here is the law again:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.