Phi for All

We've decided you don't deserve a liberal education. Dems need to understand that while caring that people's basic needs are met, too much caring is not good. And Reps need to understand that the greatest country on earth needs to include some social awareness in their small government. There is no definition of liberal I can find anywhere that implies an excess. It can mean "broad-minded", it can mean "tolerant", it can mean "a great deal", but nowhere is it supposed to mean "too much".

Wow. Dude, I hope you didn't mean this the way it sounds. Do you feel the same way about classes in school that you don't identify with? I don't think this is about legislating pride, it's about well-rounded learning. What you take away from any experience is your own affair, but the idea is to be exposed to a broad array of opportunities for growth. Again, I think the mandatory angle is all POV. If you key on the "forced" part of anything, you're going to be an unhappy camper.

You're weird in that you're consistent. I know quite a few Republicans who've been trying to juggle the Reagan/Evangelical/Neocon jumble unsuccessfully for the last 12 years. It leaves little room for a consistent, rational approach to politics. I can really respect that. This is exactly what I wanted to get at with my question to Riogho, but you phrased it much better than I would have. Very well said.

Riogho, do you consider yourself a platform Republican? I'm seriously curious about the dilemma I proposed in post #7 about the Reaganites. Trickle-down actually isn't horrible in practice (though it always made me shudder as a concept), but Reagan probably never figured so many jobs would go overseas, hobbling the effectiveness of the economics. You've made your feelings known about the Evangelicals. How do you feel about the Neo-conservatives? Do you think the party has been splintered by these seemingly conflicted agendas? It certainly lead to some weird objections to Obama. He was simultaneously called an Islamic sympathizer, a communist, an atheist, a socialist, and a fascist in addition to being a liberal Christian Democrat.

I feel the Republican frustration. I felt the same way about the Dems eight years ago. I'm looking for Obama to move closer to the center and help the Dems remain that way. How can the Reaganites (a segment of the Reps I actually respect) get their smaller government when the Evangelicals want the government to legislate how Americans conduct their personal lives? How do Reaganites deal with the Neocons suddenly wanting to police the world? Here in Colorado, an Evangelical attempt to amend our constitution to define life from the moment of conception was defeated by over 75%. Remember that until Obama, CO was a red state overall. This means that even platform Reps found the Evangelical approach too heavy-handed. Tying McCain to Bush was a winning strategy for Obama '08. I think Obama '12 will have no problem tying Palin to multiple distasteful things.

The only semi-good argument I've ever heard for keeping the separate commands is security, but I never bought into it. A unified command should actually be better at keeping the lid on secrets than a compartmentalized one (less lips sinking ships). What we get with compartmentalization is commands sometimes working at cross-purposes and rivalry for attention, funding and support. Kennedy's SecDef, Robert McNamara, squashed the proposal by Symington's group back in the 60s because he had no practical defense experience (he'd been prez of Ford Motor Co, where he'd conceived the Mustang) and relied heavily on the JCS advice not to do anything too radical. He adapted his office to oversee a single defense policy but left the organizational structures of the four branches intact. I'm just arguing that we need to drop the compartmentalization. It isolates too many administrative decisions and dissociates what should be a fighting force with a common overall objective. The sailors and the air jockeys and the grunts can still get in fights in bars over who is better, but everyone will benefit from having just one big old roll of red tape instead of four. Everyone except the old guard who will argue about tradition, that is.

I think it's a mistake to call it community service. Call it Civic Leadership, make it a required class and give credit for it at all levels. I always jumped at the chance for off-campus activities.

Completely awesome! I want one too, but scaling it up? Surely the sideways motion would be too unsettling for passengers on a large-scale version. I doubt people would take a second ride on the Hindenbass.

Amen. I get so tired of every criticism of the military being reduced to troop level. It's like arguing with creationists. Again though, we have to nip and tuck where we can. It's not going to be any one idea that saves us money, it's going to be many ideas together that add up. We need a lot of analysis on where we can pare down stupid spending that has always been hobbling us and which is now crippling us.

Listen, the idea is not to take the bullets away from the soldiers. I'm not arguing for a depleted military, but a more efficient, streamlined military. And really, the idea is to do as many smart, efficient things as possible so it totals up to some real savings. Pay for what works, and cut loose the superfluous and inefficient ways we've been clinging to, mostly because we funded it and forgot about it. I'd like to hear more from outside the US. You all have been sitting in pubs for years bantering this around, haven't you?

The one who doesn't try to spam links on a science forum full of smart people.

Agreed. But I'm more concerned that someone we don't know very well might be getting the email addresses of our other members. Let's just discuss this idea here because hey, it's what we do.

Absolutely. Sometimes the far extremes help define the middle.

bloody_thorn, you obviously don't care about your hotmail account, but I don't want you getting anyone else's email addy from their response. No offense, but we don't know you at all. This is a discussion forum, so let's keep all discussion open for everyone, as iNow suggests.

Yeah, it's too bad there are no alternative ways for people to get around in NY the way they did each time the LIE was expanded, or an effective way to give people notice that there will be a period of inconvenience that will result in less road maintenance, less wear and tear on their cars and smoother driving. So, for busy roads, I guess it's automatically NO WE CAN'T.

Perhaps those who drive that Expressway should pay extra for their convenience. Short-sightedness and impatience costs extra.

You're right, education is another area that needs real change, but I didn't even know where to start to fix it. The best I could come up with was a funnel system where young people start out with broad learning parameters and get more specialized into certain areas as they progress, with the aim of educating them into careers they not only want but are best qualified for. I think one state needs to figure out something really progressive and effective and when that state's kids start outperforming all others, the rest will jump on board. But who will be willing to forgo federal funding? As long as we don't fall for this current trick of trading convenience for durability, privatization could work. I believe Germany makes it's contractors guarantee their roads for 10 years. I think the taxpayers would trade extra detours and redistribution of jobs for lack of potholes, huge tax savings, driving safety and longer vehicle life. But from what I've seen of privatization so far, it just means more expensive. We're already paying too much for roads unnecessarily. I think unifying the military is a practical solution, rather than just cutting military spending and forcing them to do without. Rivalry (albeit friendly) has cost us much over the years, as has "tradition".

Let’s talk about change. There are two major changes I'd like to see in the US that I’ve been chewing on for years. Any major change is viewed as radical in the US, and thus most politicians steer clear of them. We’re now seeing that, in hindsight, moderate changes in our energy policies thirty years ago would have helped us a great deal to avoid our current oil dependencies and the need for radical change. This is probably the best political climate EVER to gain support for some sweeping changes we can make now to avoid regrets later. The first change I’d like to see is in the military. Back in the 60’s, Sen. Stuart Symington (D-MO) proposed unifying the military under one Chief of Staff and abolishing the separate commands that cost so much money. One of the reasons we spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military is that we have four hands reaching for every dollar allotted to defense, with four complete administrative staffs filing all the necessary formalities. And because the buying power of the military isn’t unified, we spend ridiculous amounts of money satisfying petty procurement differences (like when the Air Force wanted to give up the A-10 Thunderbolt because they didn’t like it’s close support mission and wanted the Army to support itself with helicopters while the AF flew high in fighters; the Army loved what the A-10 did for close support in the first Gulf War but wanted it’s own version, partly because they didn’t like AF snobbery over the matter). By unifying the military into a single fighting force, part of which is trained for sea missions, part for land and part for air, we don’t lose capabilities and most likely gain more bang for less bucks. This is something that needs to transition starting as soon as possible in order to realize the savings while maintaining superior defensive capabilities. The second change is the way we build our roads. Allowing people to drive on asphalt the same day it’s put down guarantees potholes and repaving within the next year or two. This keeps a lot of people working but wastes a tremendous amount of money. Let asphalt cure for 90 days before anyone drives on it and you get glass-smooth roads for at least 10 years (Germany does this with the Autobahn, the most pleasurable driving surface I’ve ever experienced). For the transition period between not-curing and curing, the savings can be used to retrain superfluous road workers. Even if this results in the same amount of money being spent (at least until the system stabilizes), we trade some inconvenience for Autobahn-style pothole-free roads. I’d like to hear about some changes you’d like to see in the United States of America, whether you live here or not.

I vote for mandatory FactCheck subtitles on every ad, infomercial and debate in 2012. And a truth interpreter at every rally, informing the public about what the candidate actually said.

If you're walking along the street, and a gust of cooler wind hits you in the face, it's because the weather pattern, something seemingly random, caused the wind to blow that way. If the temperature were slightly different, or if you were among taller buildings, or were simply walking the opposite direction, the wind may not hit you the same way. But you still have the free will to decide whether to put your jacket on or not. And the friend walking right next to you may decide to do the same as you, or not, or he may suddenly run into a coffee shop. I don't think free will and randomness are necessarily linked.

I'd ask you to define "deceiving the public", but I think I'm just going to pass on this one altogether.

I'm not sure that's possible anymore. We're like a country that's starving and needs a broad menu to choose from to satisfy everyone's tastes, but the restaurant says they're out of everything but hamburgers and hot dogs, so we're forced to defend our choice of one over the other. People who'd rather be eating something else (and maybe trying a bite of someone else's dish?) have to sit on their own side of the restaurant arguing across the aisle about why they made the right menu choice. And in the kitchen, the cooks are waiving their cleavers around while our burgers and dogs burn, hoping we never remember to ask why they always seem to be out of everything but hot dogs and hamburgers. I admit it. I voted for Obama because he has better buns!

I think we had 53 things to vote on total, but only 14 ballot initiatives. Actually 19, but five are pointless because they filed them but later decided the outcomes in arbitration. One of our referendums is hopefully going to increase the signatures needed for some of these citizen initiated measures. We're way under the national average so we get things like "shall the state change the definition of 'person' in the Colorado Constitution to include any fertilized egg, embryo or fetus?"

Ha ha. No. It's a poll you want us to vote in. Why are you surprised we would question the way you worded it? You say you made it specific so people could ignore it if they felt you were putting words in their mouths? I wish I would have known that from the beginning.

I was wrong in my phrasing. A convicted felon probably couldn't get elected (glad Steven's verdict wasn't a month later). Good calls, Pangloss and Mr Skeptic. I suppose anyone who donated money to the campaign of a convicted felon deserves to lose it. Moral turpitude is mostly used to show a wicked intent, something utterly against public standards of conduct. Has the SCOTUS ever ruled that moral turpitude is present in any case of abusing public trust while in elected office? I'm pretty sure they've ruled that way regarding fraud cases.