The Bear's Key

iNow, padren offered a good step for addressing when people can't back up their stuff, not having the luxury of constant repetition of it. At least I think it's what he said. Very interesting. We should certainly be able to formulate a standard mechanism for that kind of dealing with unsupported opinions and the replies back. Same there. A consistent mechanism with laid-out brief points would give the mods a solidly detailed way of approaching that specific problem. The point is likely for members and readers on the lurk to not take the statement as having been accepted. A viewer's impression might be that everyone agrees, since no one countered, thus possibly lending it an air of credibility. That's why padren's idea seems a good fix, so no one's belaboring an unsupported opinion and no one's repeatedly challenging it. Also, doesn't hurt that a likely result is people would investigate their claims more often -- always a good habit

It's probably that I moved around lots

Self preservations is not the same as greed. That's what's promoted, but it's entirely false. Greed includes continually taking long after you've had a good fill, often to the detriment of most others. Self-preservation might help fuel that, but it's really a lack of certain morality for people's general well-being solely to benefit oneself, as I see it. Trampling people to escape a building fire, that's more like self-preservation, and not greed. And so is building up the community.

I think the first amendment itself disputes that. However, if you want some of the nitty gritty, here we go. Be my guest and point out where you see justice highlighted Article I, Section 8 To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution... Article VI This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Preamble ...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html) The Preamble mentions lots of things, including justice. I'm not seeing it as being exclusive of issues on non-justice or fairness.

My answer's no too. But the people who seemingly hijacked it might be. (a cult) Yet obviously the Bush underlings thought it a big deal enough to threaten withholding of school funds, bribing journalists to be cheerleaders for it, and then being so very secretive about the offending part. Oddly, they never called me. Perhaps somewhere along the line, you gave personal some info out before. I know a friend who talked to a recruiter only to be practically hounded by calls for a long while.

Pt 1 I'll let you be the ("educated guessing") judge of my fairness meter... October 4th, 2008 February 19th, 2009 February 25th, 2009 April 10th, 2009 April 20th, 2009 (someone probably toked up good on this date ) June 11th, 2009 September 19th, 2009 Pt 2 Well JohnB since you're such an expert on the U.S. from your comfy perch in Australia, you might easily find where Obama did any of the kind of things listed below. Anything of equal severity will do. Heck you could take the whole 8 years to answer October 4th, 2008 February 19th, 2009 (minor correction ) March 9th, 2009 May 23rd, 2009 What you might not realize about the innocently titled (as many Bush laws were, pretty sneaky) No Child Left Behind law, is that it allowed for military recruiters to get kids home address and phone info. Guess who knew about that little sneaky bit? Practically no one until the calls began. Of course if the schools refused to give out kids' info, their new funding was to be cut off. But who cares, it's only public education right? Just a bit of perspective.

I hadn't gotten to it due to work, but I wanted to throw Pangloss a bone here. If you're still interested... Now, it's possible that conservatism among the military was responsible for having called the shots behind the oval curtain, but the way I see it Dems and/or liberals had no excuse. (In fact, I really don't like using conservative to describe what's been plaguing the Republican Party or its twisted version of what Real Conservatives are. The same with True Liberals. The Democratic Party is not remotely close to my view of liberal values. Albert Einstein was far more of a good example, for a quick reference. But all things considered, when I envision a level-headed, kind, helping-those-in-need and standing firm vs opposition kind of ideological person, I see both a liberal and conservative. The true and real versions) Now, here's things Dems were responsible for... Japanese Internments. The Nuking of Japan.

What's so funny about people not trusting government, is who's really supplying that advice: government politicians. But it does makes sense if you were to paraphrase a bit. "Don't trust government" is really just another way of saying... "Trust us and not Dems (or liberals)" and/or "Capitalism gets things done, let it replace government"

I've gotta admit, padren, both those quoted are some of the most level-headed answers I've seen here. Difficult not to be convinced. Really. Nice going. And Pangloss I commend your usual attempts to make a situation civil. Given that... I'd be fairly upset with members of the Republican Party if Obama (and/or his subordinates) were lying through his teeth, while driving the nation into a major domestic and internationally volatile efort, with special propaganda that in advance labeled the potential (Republican/conservative) opposition as unpatriotic....all the while they excuse away the critical inconsistencies by postponing necessary debate supposedly only until the big catastrophe or national emergency's over later, when it's fully obvious that debate's not going to ever happen due to the Administration's track record of such deceptive maneuverings... Plus if barely a few were able to reach beyond a secretive, loyal circle encircling the President and it seemed that Biden and (a Democratic equivalent of) Karl Rove were orchestrating the Dems' propaganda machinery via the White Hosue with allied think tanks and industry heads, blocking investigations and deleting emails.... And if Republicans under that situation were to allow Obama to speak, not about ideological stuff a party is naturally opposed to, but a continuation of the lies and obvious attempts to grab power -- and no Republican under that situation were to take a freakin stand for the citizens of the U.S with major abuses to the constitution being done in secrecy...well, you know how I'd feel about it. Sometimes one does have to be uncivil, or at least have balls (not a shout and duck). Question is.... How would you approach that scenario differently? Explain how you'd go by the regular channels if you were a senator or representative.

Are you saying every nation's political organizations have a fairly equal distribution of nutjobs? I'd say that is leagues beyond inaccurate, if so. Plus I don't see where anyone cliamed their side is pure.

Unions, like any widespread institution, need sufficient oversight by us. But that's a real problem we can tackle....and especially because we can see it. According to the suite101 link those problems once more all seem traceable to the administrators of schools. (Now granted, it could be that page has it entirely wrong) When new teachers are hired, they remain on probation for two to five years. Probationary teachers may be dismissed for any reason at all. Districts that demand only superior teachers can dismiss any who are merely satisfactory. Untenured teachers have no legal protection. ........ In brief, if the district cannot fire a bad teacher, it should also be working to fire the incompetent administrator who failed to document the teacher's poor performance. Of course there's more to the problem which could ultimately make its source political (as usual). Thus it's fairly realistical to ask ourselves: when enough in government openly detest the idea of any kind of public system, how many in government power will consequently turn a blind eye to what the schools actually need? How many will (on purpose) indirectly sabotage it to ensure that private options look the more better? It's very possible the answer is none. But it's not entirely inconceivable that dirty politics are in motion. A good place to start is looking at why the outcome in the U.S differs from other nations. Below's an example... http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm Across-the-board quality characterized the study's top-scoring nations. No. 1 performers Finland, Japan and Korea, for example, were also among the countries with the narrowest gap between the highest and lowest performers. Korea was the nation with the smallest variation, indicating that all its schools were doing well in educating their students. ..... One factor the study did find: Students tended to do worse in nations in which there was a high degree of segregation along socioeconomic lines. In the United States, the study found a bigger difference among students from different schools and socioeconomic groups than in most other countries. Yet those same differences didn't affect some other nations' performances. "In Finland everyone does well and social background has little impact," From the above link... Scientific Literacy 1. Korea 2. Japan 3. Finland 4. United Kingdom ........ 14. United States Mathematical Literacy 1. Japan 2. Korea 3. New Zealand 4. Finland ........ 19. United States Reading Literacy 1. Finland 2. Canada 3. New Zealand 4. Australia ........ 15. United States And now a bit about the magnitude of public schools in the Top 3 nations of each category. Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Education_and_science Most pre-tertiary education is arranged at municipal level. Even though many or most schools were started as private schools, today only around 3 % students are enrolled in private schools (mostly Helsinki-based schools such as SYK), many times less than in Sweden and most other developed countries.[81] Interesting that schools began as private and the change was made towards public. Maybe it happened a long time ago, however. More research is necessary. Korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Education_and_science The modern Korean school system consists of 6 years in elementary school, 3 years in middle school, and 3 years in high school. Students are supposed to go to elementary and middle school, and do not have to pay for the education, except for a small fee called "School Operation Support Fee" that differs from school to school. (The teachers are paid from taxes) The Programme for International Student Assessment, coordinated by the OECD, currently ranks South Korea's science education as the 3rd best in the world, being significantly higher than the OECD average.[52] Korea also ranks 2nd on Maths and literature and 1st in problem solving. Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Education_and_health Since 1947, compulsory education in Japan consists of elementary school and middle school, which lasts for nine years (from age 6 to age 15). Almost all children continue their education at a three-year senior high school, and, according to the MEXT, about 75.9% of high school graduates attend a university, junior college, trade school, or other post-secondary institution in 2005.[120] Japan's education is very competitive,[121] especially for entrance to institutions of higher education. The two top-ranking universities in Japan are the University of Tokyo and Keio University.[122] The Programme for International Student Assessment coordinated by the OECD, currently ranks Japanese knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds as the 6th best in the world.[123] If accurate, the top-ranking universities are one public and one private. New Zealand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_New_Zealand Education in New Zealand follows the three-tier model which includes primary schools, followed by secondary schools (high schools) and tertiary education at universities and/or polytechs. The Programme for International Student Assessment ranks New Zealand's education as the 7th best in the world.[1] Education is free and compulsory between the ages of 6 and 16; though typically, children start school on their 5th birthday, or the first School Day after it. Post-compulsory education is regulated within the New Zealand National Qualifications Framework, a unified system of national qualifications in schools, vocational education and training. All its major universities seem to be public. Canada http://www.schoolsincanada.com/Canadian-Education-System.cfm All provinces and territories provide universal, free elementary and secondary schooling for 12 years, with the exception of Quebec where it is for 11 years. Education is compulsory to the age of between 15 and 18, depending on the province. http://www.schoolsincanada.com/About-Canadian-Universities-and-Colleges.cfm Universities and colleges in Canada come in all types! In addition to more than 100 universities, Canada has over 130 community colleges and more than 1,000 career colleges across the country. These schools can be public or private, 4-year or 2-year, single-facility, multi-campus or online institutions... Every nation shown above has teacher unions... New Zealand Tertiary Education Union New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association New Zealand educational institute Korea Korean Federation of Teachers Associations Finland Opetusalan Ammattijärjestö Finnish Union of University Researchers and Teachers Canada Canadian Teachers' Federation Centrale des syndicats du Québec Fedéracion québecoise des professeures et professeurs d'Université Canadian Association of University Teachers Japan Japan Teachers' Union And so do both the runner-ups... United Kingdom National Unions of Teachers National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers Educational Institute of Scotland Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association University and College Union Association of Teachers and Lecturers Australia Independent Education Union of Australia National Tertiary Education Union Australian Education Union Maybe we can take lessons from healthcare costs in the U.S. It's possible we're better able to notice when citizens get ripped off by healthcare that charges way more $$ here in the U.S. (than in other nations), for example on certain prescriptions, because we experience it up close and personal: our wallet's lighter. Yet how often do we examine what government offices pay for their materials, goods, and services? Do politicians take care not be ripped off by contractors, or do they give special benefits to industry friends? And do schools get ripped off for their purchases? If so, it doesn't matter if the U.S. spends a lot on education, because much of the cost would go to paying for overpriced goods and services. Then it'd be very much like the U.S. healthcare system, paying the most cost for the least beneift. And if so, politicians likely want us all to blame it on the educational system they're actually responsible for messing up (and to then hand over the system to industry friends). Question is, do you believe them unquestioningly, or do you see that the picture doesn't quite fit and investigate accordingly?

Holy freakin crap. The kind of argument I like, that in one fell swoop can undo the weaker reasonings, no matter how strongly perpetuated and believed. Let's see what happens

What've you done to establish it's the unions' fault -- especially across the board? Is the following inaccurate? Only rarely are bad teachers protected. When inadequate teachers are shown the evidence that will be used against them at a tenure hearing, most voluntarily resign – often encouraged by union leaders who can see that the district's case is strong. Nevertheless, unions are required by law to defend teachers who choose to fight dismissal. (bolded emphasis mine)

Conversely, no matter how rich and cheerful you get, everyone else will also be just as rich and cheerful. Yet probably it's hard to reach that juncture before it gets sabotaged for being a threat with the following criteria... Helps the general business marketplace yet thwarts the crooked players, and so it's BAAAAAD

I think you're mistaken. Not only does a religious belief have a specific writing it's dedicated to, but its loyal followers reference it consistently under a setting of worship and/or in ceremonies... often its leadership being the ultimate authority for what aspects change -- or the extent to which traditions must be followed.

And my opinion is that you're correct. OH! -- another one

I propose that you're looking at capitalism as utopian more than how I'd look at anything. My views is we need a step forward, much like the vision by our forefathers while totally careful to not alter it -- plus utopia's something I don't lend much credibility to. However...balancing variables of the world and its societies like a talented chef would the ingredients in a fantastic meal, yes. And I propose that you trust government far more than I do. Going by the most obvious example, you're trusting the government when a certain major part of it tells us capitalism is great, and the politicians running on that motto. Curious, do you also trust the same major part of government when it claims the need for smaller government and less taxes? As for me, I'm an Independent and never will join a party even if 100% of their moves and uttered words spoke to the very core of my interests. (They'd likely gain my vote, but that's about it) Politicians are never to be fully trusted.

At different schools? Because it might be the administrator (who'd need firing before anything happens). If so, I wonder how difficult they are to fire? I plan to do some investigating around here as well. That sucks. Handled really poorly. The kind of system that definitely needs change, if the administrator's truly the main source of the problem. Guess we'll see.

Woah agentchange, the tone of your post's changed a lot in a year's time. I like it much better. Kudos. (even if we completely disagree on the topic )

entwined just answered the question (thoguh inadvertantly): what's wrong with socialism is pretty much its definition, especially #2. When a person hears about socialism (with Obama in context), then looks it up to gain understanding, they might not see the European blend of socialism and capitalism, but rather the imminently soon-to-materialize full blown communism part of that definition. Reading it, socialism's in the active -- moving towards communism. Guess the rightards have successfully poisoned that well for a very long time. So as of now I'm entirely stopping my use of the word. It's best to just create a new one, which really speaks of balance that's yet innovative and prosperous. A new system. It's also necessary because with all the modern technologies and developments, the other concepts have become fairly aged (including capitalism). Forgot to answer this before No such monkey. Goals can never be achieved without effort.

So how exactly does it punish ability? Or, does it make them envious of the needy person's dilemma having gotten support -- and rather be in their shoes? But also, how's it even rewarding need? All it's doing is taking care of a dire need. Or societal ones like education. It's not bothering with most other everyday needs. For instance, lots of people get hungry for restaurnats (or take-out), want sex, and desire riches or big houses. Can you name one socialist government that provides any of it to citizens as standard procedure? As for home food, keep in mind that in the U.S. less than 10% here are on food stamps, usually as a temporary measure -- and often just partial benefits. Wrong on so many levels. Really. Have you not ever met people who refused help, no matter how available it was? Look at things from an inner view. Would you become that needy and dependent person if you were helped out in a time of need (or urgent care)? Or, could also read up on a study to help clarify the number of eligible who are too proud to receive help. I'm certain all of us here know many such people. Please specify how they're castigated. As for the needy, it's a bit of an exaggeration for being considered noble. There's plenty in the successful realm who are idolized, so I fail to see your view. Heck, even on these or any professionally run forums, if someone has awful grammar (i.e. "needy" of writing skills), they're certainly not given a round of high-fives and star treatment. Plus I've repeatedly heard such views (loudly) claimed by political media opponents of government help. My suggestion: please think for yourself mate. Actually I made the case of it being a misconception about teachers unions, where the real culprits might be the school administrators. Unions certainly have their faults, but let's address real ones. And therein lies the rub....both strategies have "more to do with tools at our disposal to use together in the smartest ways to solve problems". Thus the best ways of solving problems also often hurts those who profit highly from the messy-on-us system. But I did hint at something like that once (a while ago)... So I view it as such: mass problems don't happen by coincidence. The roots of it's all fairly simple really.

(Gigantically) large-scale, not the ones you grew up in or around. They make some good points, but ultimately...they're biased against meat eating in any form, plus make claims on how animals feel about death which lack citations and so they might well be pulling it out of their asses. However, who cares? I'm not for or against vegan philosophy. My own research into tracking ANY packaged food down to its source, and how exactly do those responsible slip into bed with government, has convinced me enough to seek real alternatives to that unsustainable/disastrous system. I lived on a farm as well, and they plowed using mules, collected rainwater for drinking, and were organic simply either because they had no access to pesticides, or didn't care to use them. Yet we managed just fine on the 20 acres (or so) of land.

No. The propaganda about teachers' unions might just come from the same politicians who claim death squads about the healthcare bill or that for government to keep an eye on industry wrongdoings is bad. So I offer here my fashioned rule of thumb, as it's done wonders for getting to the root of whatever a politician or their media feeds us: simply view every political claim as highly suspect of being an outright lie,* or a context switcherooo* of reality with the benefits of drawing your misled anger upon their opposition. *(but not automatically: reasearch it! -- keeping wary of the source) And so...the extent of the "rabid teaching unions" might be as dramatized as Iraq's WMD and connection to 9/11. Be informed not by trickery, but reality. If you can't find material, go to the source: ask teachers (of reputable knoweldge/character), faculty staff, anyone who's not obviously biased. Maybe even look at the union rules themselves or ask for a copy of the job termination procedures from the local school board. All depends on what level of informed you need to be. This PSA is now over With the above in mind, use the below to start off and do more research. And a *kudos* prize if along the way you find us any reason why certain politicians need you to attack both public schools and teacher unions. http://school-staff-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/teacher_tenure Wherever teacher tenure protects a bad teacher, an incompetent administrator won't be far away. ..... Sometimes, in fact, it may be very difficult to get rid of a bad teacher, but there is nothing in the law that protects bad teaching. In every state that gives its teachers the protection of tenure, teachers may be fired for incompetence. ........ Tenure prevents school districts from replacing well paid, experienced teachers with lower salaried beginning teachers. Tenured teachers dare to criticize ill-considered school policies... ........ Some shameless sycophants persuade building administrators to ignore their numerous faults. Worst of all, some building administrators may be incapable of telling good teaching from bad. Some were inadequate teachers who went into administration to escape the classroom. Some never taught at all. They favor teachers who never question their authority, even when they are dead wrong. ........ Once teachers earn tenure, they only can be fired for cause. Administration must have a valid reason to fire a tenured teacher, and the tenure board or arbitrator hearing the case will expect to see evidence of poor performance. Teachers are observed and evaluated on a regular basis, so a bad teacher's personnel file ought to contain poor observation reports, letters of reprimand, and suggestions for improvement. If no such evidence is present – or if nearly all the negatives were added to the file shortly before the effort to fire the teacher began – the teacher can argue that his or her overall performance was satisfactory. In brief, if the district cannot fire a bad teacher, it should also be working to fire the incompetent administrator who failed to document the teacher's poor performance. How often does Tenure Protect Bad Teachers? Only rarely are bad teachers protected. When inadequate teachers are shown the evidence that will be used against them at a tenure hearing, most voluntarily resign.... Read more: http://school-staff-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/teacher_tenure#ixzz0RWyB1bSM

The vid has too many parts we're likely not familiar enough on and need to research for ourselves a lot more before agreeing or disagreeing. However, I only saw that the video producers had some technically untrue assumptions. For example, not all meat industries do what they portrayed. And the video focused on cruelty, but it's the least of the problems with super-commercial meats. I for one have no problem eating meat, or with the slaughter/killing of animals for our eating satisfaction. And I don't see the traditional slaughterers as any less compassionate than the rest of us. However, so many other things are seriously wrong at enough large-scale meat production businesses that I'd avoid everything but free-range and smaller productions done more by people with business ethics and/or common decency. Mostly avoiding it for my health and because their policies so often result in environmental disasters. Not by all. The video producers became too gung-ho in the fight against those practices, and so didn't critically think out the argument enough. It's a simple case of the well-meaning acivist unintentionally poisoning their own well, instead of the usual opponents doing it. Fact is you can eat meat while avoiding the offending sources, just at times it's more difficult -- especially when industry paints an open farm with lush grass and roaming cows under their product logo. Nowhere was that said on the video, nor could I find such throughout the website. No offense mate, however it being a topic in which you specifically claim to be well-versed, I hope you put more of a critical eye and in-depth analysis into the commercial meat practices. The only suggestive phrase I could find having the word is "compassionate cook". Yes, a bit suggestive and partially uninformed/wrong or biased, as they remain silent on alternative or traditional ways of meat-production. But it's a vegan website, so I'm hardly surprised. And while I disagree with the veggies/greens only, it's never to the extent of telling vegans to switch to better raised meats. I'll present what I know and let them decide. Yes it's a fallacy. Agreed Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWould've been nice to have a choice of "yes and no. (Please explain)"

mooey already highlighted consistency as the other determining factor. Secular and consistent: do the reasons given fit both criteria? Nothing to do with superiority.