The point is, is that the United States is slowly outsourceing or altogether canceling science related projects. There're just too expensive and to be blunt the average citizen isn't smart enough to realize the benefits we can gain just from a land based telescope. People are lucky if they know what a molecule is.

A good example is research being done into fusion. If the U.S. dropped a lot of money into the already functioning program in Europe we could get the next prototype plant up by 2016-2020. Right now we are providing just an extremely small amount of money on this project, while Europe continues to do it alone. But, it will take much longer without our help. We won't see functioning reactors (which is the solution to our energy demands) until 2060 or thereabouts at this pace.

If the U.S. took a lead role you could see that number go down to 2030, maybe sooner depending on what resources we make available to help. BTW, this is a guaranteed solution, it will work, they know this already. Obama asked for a project that would help America and it's citizens as well as something that would eventually bring work here--this was a huge blunder to me, not to automatically support FUSION especially when all the necessary science has been done. All that is left is building the prototype to fine tune the energy distribution and then designing the first core design for a modern Fusion station.

Things like that let me know that we really don't care about science that much anymore. There are a lot of great people out there, but there simply just could be more. It has everything to do with what scholarship programs we make available, the way we teach and what we teach with, tuition continues to hike up, science is demonized by those that don't understand it--and they in turn affect their children's schooling, the government continues to decrease money to scientific programs across the board--like NASA, and the most damning part is that our politicians decrease education funding as well.

Quality over quantity is a ridiculous argument, it's a political talking point--nothing else. We are losing our focus. I've yet to hear a scientist (and not some Creationist linked bunk crap) ever use that statement, they know we are going down hill.

/A little long, but damnit, I'm passionate about science. It's been the one thing that has constantly picked us up out of the rut.

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

Have you ever read the bible? I've found most critics of the bible haven't actually even read it, much less understood it. Generally, the average atheist will pick through it and find a few things he doesn't like and then turns off his brain at that point. The intellectual scholarship of Christianity is much greater than you understand, and if you studied the bible for an entire lifetime you still wouldn't know everything there is to know that is in it. It is inexaustible.

I'll give you a few reasons why I think the bible is credible. The first two are personal. One, that revelation was given to me about certain facts in the bible, before I ever read or understood it, so that when I did read it, it was instantly confirmed to me as being divinely inspired.

Two, by following the words of Jesus Christ, my life has been completely transformed for the better in every tangible way. I stopped doing many unhealthy things I formally did not have the willpower or inclination to stop doing, and these near instantaneously. There was also a transformation of my character, and a 100 percent cure to any depression that I experienced, that being replaced with joy. None of this was accomplished by hard work on my part; I simply believed in Gods promises and followed His word and it all happened supernaturally through the Holy Spirit. The experience I've had matches the promises to the letter.

Three, the bible accurately describes the human condition. It lays bare the nature of man and describes the fundemental dichotomies of his existence. It accurately predicts human behavior and describes in finite detail the mechanisms that create those behaviors.

Four, the bible accurately describes the moral realm. It shows that right and wrong is intuitive to human nature, being that each of us has a God given conscience that knows right from wrong. This matches the universal norms of morality we see in all human civilizations. It also matches my experience, that although humans can justify any kind of behavior, that there is a sense of absolute right and wrong which precedes any intellectual calculation. It further illustrates the moral responsibility we have to our Creator, because sin transgresses His moral law. That the guilty conscience you have is foremost because you have offended a holy God, and the things you think you have gotten away with are really the chains that bind you.

Five, the bible has much fulfilled prophecy, starting with all of the prophecies of the Messiah, which Jesus fulfilled hundreds and in some cases over a 1000 years after they were written. There are also prophecies about israel going into captivity at certain times down to the year, the destruction of Jerusalem, the recent reformation of Israel, accurately predicting even the very currency it would be using.

Six, that it is historically accurate, and has been verified by archaelogy literally 10s of thousands of times. The people, places and civilizations in the bible have been confirmed as being real and existing as described, and this over much scoffing and skepticism over the centuries.

Seven, that it contains certain facts about the world that simply could not have been known at the time, such as information about the hydrologic cycle, ocean currents and springs, the right day for circumcision (on the 8th day the chemicals for blod clotting are at their highest peak), that the earth is free floating in space, the uncountable number of stars (at the time they thought that they could put a number to it by counting the ones we can see), etc..or at the most basic, that it says the Universe had a beginning, which science didn't figure out until more recently..and scientists actually used to use their belief in an eternal Universe to discredit the bible..

One of the biggest confirmations was that I received the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms everything Jesus said is true. It is something tangible and is an experiential experience that isn't simply wishful thinking. More than an experience, it is to know God personally, because His Spirit dwells within you.

Lastly, and most importantly, is the person of Jesus Himself. His words outrank by a vast degree any earthly wisdom, and expose the vain philosophies of man as foolish and futile. His words are a fountain of life, living and active, and they set the standard for all human discourse. Indeed, they are the words this civilization is built upon. The transforming power they have had on the world and in the hearts of men is beyond dispute, and direct proof of their pure truth. To follow the example of Jesus is the most difficult thing any person could ever try to do (indeed it is impossible without supernatural help) and it is also the most rewarding (as in eternally). In truth, they are the only words that lead to life. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

So, these are a few reasons I think the bible is credible. What I can tell you is that without the Holy Spirit you will never understand it, because it is truth that comes by supernatural revelation. Feel free to disagree, but I was once in your position, and believed much the same things about the bible. You just cannot imagine how far off you are from understanding it until that veil is removed from your eyes.

>> ^gwiz665

something about having one's *entire educational future hinge on the number of footballs you can throw through a hole seems sadistic and backwards.

(*exaggeration, i know there are other ways to get by than on Dr. Pepper Scholarships, but still...)

I'm pulling for Mr. Pibb to take the high rode and offer a full-ride to the winner of a high school science/engineering contest. Or at least a free, one year supply of Mr. Pibb - Support the intellectuals!

I could see the point of having a maximum cap on fee raising each year. So you can at least figure out your budgeting and plan for 4 years of that maximum increase. Having huge unforeseen hikes forced upon you without enough warning to apply elsewhere and get the hell out of dodge.....that's no good for a group of people who obviously don't have financial means at their disposal.

I'd guess it'd take about 3 months to apply and get accept somewhere, probably need more like 6 months to get your options on the table, scholarships and etc lined up and figured out..plus any government financial aid (FAFSA, Pell, etc).

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

FYI you can donate DIRECTLY to research institutes/departments/labs... back in the day, my grad school lab received two anonymous donations each of a few thousand bucks; that money allowed us to try new things that actually dramatically affected my research.

... but if you're not into being anonymous AND want to donate a large amount of cash, they will name something after you!
When I'm just a tad more set in my finances (5 years from now is my goal) I'm starting a small scholarship fund for undergrads interested in studying neuroscience... you can bet I'm naming that shit after me! Maybe install a small alter and a 'buddy christ' with my face on it...

(a) You guys are simultaneously arguing contradictory points, that higher education is (1) a scam and waste of money and (2) required to get a good job. Which one is it? Is higher education worthless or is it the key to high-paying jobs?

I'm sure you will argue that it is both a scam AND a requirement for good jobs because of some widespread corporate conspiracy. But the simple fact is that employers see a lot of value in good degrees. I want my civil engineer and teacher to have good educations with formal certification.

(b) You guys are putting words in my mouth.

"You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia"

My entire adult life has been spent in academia -- numerous universities both public and private, in multiple different roles. I love academia! i think most students should get higher education. I think there is widespread availability of good, reasonably priced schools.

"The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding."

Very few schools are for-profit -- only the scum like ITT and U of Phoenix. Those places are evil. But every traditional university in this country is a not-for-profit or state-run organization. Have expenses gotten out of hand? Maybe, but as long as the market will support these prices it won't stop. Is the market only supporting these prices because of student loans? To some degree. But there's a simple solution -- don't take out huge loans and instead go to a great state university or community college. If you were a good student this is even easier as scholarships offers will pour in.

"Even small liberal arts schools with no science departments or interactions with corporations have had sky-rocketing costs."

Yes, I was pointing to this fact as ridiculous. The students getting 200k debt at these schools to major in English literature are definitely the big losers in higher education, but they have everything available to them to make an informed decision before entering such a program. I don't think it's necessarily the school's fault unless they actively misrepresent the outcome of students.

"If it really is a stupid idea to educate yourself in America these days (as Rychan seems to suggest is the case for many people)"

Not sure where I suggested that. I wouldn't go so far as to call higher education a universal right, but if you are a good student in the US then it effectively is.

@MilkmanDan One of the examples they used in the book was ice hockey. Unlike your example of the multiplier, in many cases, it is winner takes all. So, in hockey, tryouts are in January. Leagues are typically by age group. So, being the absolute oldest you can be for the group naturally entails an age gap that makes you just a bit stronger, faster, more mature, ect. That edge means you are more likely that someone who is born, say, in July-August. That half a year of aging ends up that most of the oldest players edge out all of the youngest players, even in, given apples and apples of age, those younger players might be better overall players; the "skill" gap, however makes that edge not more so than the age gap, and therefor many will not make the team.

This cycle will continue; so, the younger not only will ALWAYS be younger, but usually miss out on being on the team, not getting the necessarily experience needed if he wanted to make hockey his job. He is, in effect, crowded out of the best training and experience not based only on his skill, but his age. So, he is implicitly left out in the rain. I can't remember the exact number, but some statistically significant (like 70+%) of hockey players are born near the normal tryout date for hockey. It would seem doubtful that this be some genetic inheritance of being born in a time of year more than a man made occurrence of time conditions.

So you could apply a multiplier to that, I guess. It just isn't quite as simple as "I have a bigger multiplier in this one spot". There are many "lucky" factors like time of birth, personality, family life, sociability, and random circumstances beyond your control that have huge effects on the overall outcome of your life. And moreso, beyond your raw ability to make up for that difference. One of the great examples (which the book uses) of life getting in the way is Christopher_Langan. He is the only person to score a perfect result on the IQ test, which has never been done, and such, is touted as the smartest man in the world, ever. However, the conditions of his life, broken home, and various others, resulted in him loosing his scholarship, working in a bar, and a relatively unremarkable life. No one knows his name (except for savy sifters, he's on here) even though he should have every opportunity to make use of his great mind. The point of the book, and I think most people would agree when they consider it, is that talent isn't enough. You have to be in the right place, at the right time, and know the right people to make that talent count for something. That even applies for science, it isn't immune to irrational bouts of favoritism and unreasonable circumstance. Everything has its, as Sun Tzu would call it, rules of heaven and earth.

The books main point is that the best of the best aren't in that spot based on merit alone. They had several other, equally important, factors determining the fate of their empires of awesome. The arc of the messages is that many great people in history have been forgotten, and many of the greats that we know weren't really that great.

LOL... oh, we're gonna play that game now.

So what do you call the stock market crashes post 9/11, 2007, 1987, all under your heroes - George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan? Guess your boys were... what did you call them... or, right... "clueless fking idiots".

Dude, seriously, check your facts before you post idiotic stuff like this.

Just to clarify, I'm not blaming Reagan or W. singlehandedly or even predominantly for those crashes. The drop today in fact has as much to do with European markets as it does the American markets. How exactly Obama could be blamed for that makes absolutely no sense.

About Bush's spending - completely laughable. The right was 100% on board with tax cuts (which contributed massively to the deficit, regardless if you want to count it as spending or not), and both the Afghan and Iraqi wars. About the only thing they were against was the senior citizens prescription drug benefit, and even then, I sure didn't hear a whole lot of opposition by them at the time. Compare that to Obama wanting to raise taxes on millionaires by a few percentage points and the right, including you, come out saying he's a communist or socialist, which is utterly ridiculous.

Name socialist programs that worked?

I define programs socialist in nature that cause the gov't to determine what is produced (related, how it is produced), who produces it, and/or who consumes it. With that said, here are the gov't programs that overall unquestionably the US is better for it.

Universal primary/secondary education
Federal grants and scholarships
Environmental regulation
Food and Drug Administration (before it, it wasn't safe to assume the food you bought from the grocery store wouldn't kill you)
Social Security (say what you want, but even critics have to agree Social Security has run very well, and benefitted the economy for most of its existence)
Medicare (seniors are happier with their health care than any other age group, and the vast majority are on medicare, medicare has been in existence for over 45 years)
Medicaid
VA hospitals

BTW, you can't say something has been a failure just because it's having problems today. If the program has existed for decades and was fine up to this point, it clearly can be run properly. Instead of questioning its existence, it's perfectly rational to look at how to reform it to allow it to work again.

And yes, public schools are underfunded. That's clear as day. And your rationale to not spend more is preposterous. Carried to its absurd conclusion, we should eliminate all funding for education in any manner whatsoever. Kids will learn just as much outside without shelter, books, or even teachers! Funding does matter. It doesn't determine everything about achievement. The #1 factor of student achievement is actually the socio-economic class of the students' parents. However, if the school is drastically underfunded, that child's performance will be inhibited.

See, I taught public schools, so I actually know wtf I'm talking about. You explain to me how routine classes of 37 8th grade students, 24 of them with learning disabilities, in a single class with no special education help (because there weren't enough special edu teachers to go around because it's impossible to find enough special edu teachers, because, oh wonder of wonders, nobody wants to go to spend the money to go to college to become a special edu teacher because their salaries are crap, just like every other teacher, and the job is even harder than other teaching jobs) doesn't qualify as ridiculous underfunding. This wasn't an inner city school, either. It was suburbia in a comparatively well off county in Virginia. Our textbooks were 15 years old and above reading grade level and falling apart. The county didn't have enough schools, so most of the schools had outside trailer classrooms. And no, there wasn't embezzling, or major issues with misallocation of funds. The area was heavily conservative; voters would rather have low taxes than well functioning schools, and it showed. Then you have idiots who claim the schools suck, and say it's because they're public schools, and the government can't do anything right. The government failed because it did what the people wanted - lowest taxes regardless of the consequences.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Dow dropped 500 points today (04 Aug). Are you awake yet? People are voting with their $$$ and they have zero confidence in the Kenyanesque Hawaiian (a true label, as Papa was Kenyan and Barry is from Hawaii) who has proved to be a clueless fking idiot.
(If you don't want to believe Obama is clueless, a more terrifying conclusion awaits you: everything about his lifelong ideology, thinking America is the #1 threat in the world which must be stopped [or slowed down] is 100% true).
I know you want to believe this debt crap is a 'victory' for the right. It's nothing of the kind. We are in serious trouble and both sides ain't worth sh1t, but only one side is even trying to steer away from the cliff and rocks below.
The "spending cuts" are smoke and mirrors. Allow me to explain. Say you wanted to buy a car for 100K but instead buy one or 20K. The government would call that an 80K "spending cut". The government has NEVER cut spending.
As for your assessment of me, I don't remember enough about you to make a similar assessment, you seem to always be in attack dog mode but rarely do I see you drawing on facts for arguments. The left judges programs on what they're supposed to do, not how well they work (or not). That kind of insanity can only be measured in good intentions and resources wasted. You're standing on the edge of a cliff wearing Styrofoam wings, believing you can fly because that's the intent of the wings. Gravity says otherwise.

I've said it before and will again: I wish you lefties could prove me wrong with results: e.g. actual created jobs and prosperity, real evidence the (Bush created) scamulus worked, proof social programs work efficiently without counting good intentions, and stable financial markets attractive to investors the world over. There is no consumer confidence and zero trust now.

The left's incessant demonization of "the rich" is to win class warfare votes. It can do nothing else. Obama has already apent 3 trillion dollars in 3 years. Do you think "the rich" have more than 3 trillion hidden away? Democrat spending never stops and Republican spending barely slows down.
You can be pissed at me all day long, but I'm even more pissed at the disastrous results of this piss-poor excuse of an administration.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

Did you not notice the economic bill he just fucking signed. Spending Cuts EVERY FUCKING WHERE...and Obama saying that it's wonderful...he didn't add any fucking taxes either. You've WON EVERYTHING by supporting the richest in the nation...and you're still bitching about something that's been proven COMPLETELY wrong.
This is my problem with you QM...you're just wrong, even using your own logic and facts, you're just always fucking wrong. I've met conservatives that were smart and made good arguments and I can have a conversation with...you could be one of those people but you're just fucking not. You're given a lot of shit on here but you're also given a lot of leash I would've banned your ass a long time ago just for being stupid.

How hard could it be? You show up and communicate information within your field of expertise. The students take it all in. Job done.

It's not that simple.

You would have a very different perspective if you ever tried teaching yourself.

If you were responsible for educating 200 - 300 students with different learning styles, different motivating factors, different attention levels, different levels of discipline, different levels of comprehension, different types of psychology, different levels of intelligence, different levels of interest, different levels of sanity, different stages of physiological development (AKA puberty), etc. you'd get it.

In addition to 'teaching', an educator also needs to be a leader, a negotiator, a salesman, a disciplinarian, a politician, an administrator, a motivator, a receptionist, an advocate, a librarian, a manager, a public relations agent, a psychologist, an entertainer, an accountant, and for some students, a parent. If you are a music teacher, you get even more hats - arranger, copyist, bus scheduler, event planner, fund raiser, critic, graphic designer, contractor etc. (Running a high school band is like running a business, complete with a board, fundraiser income, expenses, employees, audits, etc.)

The 'teaching' part is the easiest part of the job. If there weren't so many responsibilities outside of the actual 'teaching', you and chilaxe would have a point. And, I haven't even mentioned dealing with administrators and parents, which is an art in and of itself.

I know you grew up in a region of the country that does not have high educational standards (and cruel stereotypes that reinforce these low standards), so I don't doubt that you've had more than your fair share of bad teachers. If anything, I think you have first hand experience of what happens when public education is neglected and underfunded. If you get the cuts you want in education, you will be saddling future generations with the same substandard education you experienced growing up. Is that really what you want?

I grew up in middle class Southern California, with teachers that were paid fairly, schools that were well funded and parents that involved themselves in the academic lives of their children. (3 of the biggest factors in student achievement). Out of the 40+ teachers I had from K-12, I can think of two that were bad (one was a morbidly obese right wing history teacher that spent as much time praising Reagan and Capitalism as he did teaching history, the other was a self-loathing Science teacher who seemed to fear any kind of social interaction). I can think of 14 that were exceptional teachers and human beings - I'm still in touch with a few of them. The rest were competent at their jobs, if not particularly memorable.

I got good grades and received a half scholarship to a prominent west coast university (fight on). Since then I've had the luxury of being able to play music for a living (and occasionally teach or compose). Public education did me a solid.

PS: I like when you share stories from your life with me. I find it much more moving and persuasive than being called a statist idiot.

Oh you don't like how they try to use personality tests, GPA, and the infamous "career day" to help kids decide? I'm still not sure what I could stand to do for the rest of my life, and that's mainly because everything they tried to tell me was not helpful and everything you look into is not what people claim it to be.

Which I view as a failing of colleges, since young people are paying money to go into things they only have a very vague notion of and unless their parents or a close relative do the job, no one is going to provide them with straight answers in a vast majority of the time. Assuming they even consider what careers to ask about or what questions to ask about said careers.

I hold it up as proof that colleges at this time are there to get people in and out of programs while milking them for as much as possible, but don't actually take the time to evaluate that their programs provide the building blocks the student would need to follow the job path they THINK they want. The colleges don't care if the students presumptions are wrong.

I also view elementary to high school as bypassing a lot of common knowledge, common sense, life skills, etc things kids should learn. Like electric safety and basic repairs, basic automotive/mechanic/tool usage, cooking/laundry basics, and probably the most important of all nutrition and exercise. You see people on the news having heatstroke and everything else because they don't drink enough fluids or don't realize that not sweating is a really bad thing. Plus proper stretching and all that. I mean I remember them having wood working classes, and it didn't even focus on things you might actually run into that you could repair on your own without having some major equipment.

Education is great, but too many people come out of high school and college with a lot of knowledge, no applicable skills to a field, and almost no rudimentary skills to speak of. And this isn't saying they should be trained for jobs, this is saying they have enough of a common life skill set that they can at least somewhat measure what is required in positions. Right now, everyone claims they can do everything and they really know very little.

But Im with you there on the TNG DNA job matching.....wish we had it. No politics, nepotism, and what not to throw a wrench into everything.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner 'everyone who qualifies for college should go for free.'
Just what we need, more lazy, talentless graduates with a heart-warming "culture studies" or "environmental studies" degree working for minimum wage at Starbucks.
I have too many friends to count who got useless college degrees and now, ten years later, are still doing nothing with their lives.

So free choice didn't make people lead full and productive lives? Imagine that.
Snark aside, I don't really see why more scholarships would change things. I'm not talking about making college compulsory, I'm talking about taking monetary cost out of the equation when discussing whether you go or not.
Remember that episode of ST:TNG where all the kids on the Enterprise got kidnapped by an alien race, and they did tests on their DNA, and then told them what their career would be and immediately put them to work? They were fun professions too, like musician, sculptor, engineer, etc.
I sometimes think I would've personally preferred that to having to figure out in my teenage years what kind of career would appeal to me, acquire the skills and training required by that career, and then find a job. It seems like our education system should expend a greater effort on that, rather than just presenting kids with ever-larger menus of classes to take and degrees to earn.

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner 'everyone who qualifies for college should go for free.'
Just what we need, more lazy, talentless graduates with a heart-warming "culture studies" or "environmental studies" degree working for minimum wage at Starbucks.
I have too many friends to count who got useless college degrees and now, ten years later, are still doing nothing with their lives.


So free choice didn't make people lead full and productive lives? Imagine that.

Snark aside, I don't really see why more scholarships would change things. I'm not talking about making college compulsory, I'm talking about taking monetary cost out of the equation when discussing whether you go or not.

Remember that episode of ST:TNG where all the kids on the Enterprise got kidnapped by an alien race, and they did tests on their DNA, and then told them what their career would be and immediately put them to work? They were fun professions too, like musician, sculptor, engineer, etc.

I sometimes think I would've personally preferred that to having to figure out in my teenage years what kind of career would appeal to me, acquire the skills and training required by that career, and then find a job. It seems like our education system should expend a greater effort on that, rather than just presenting kids with ever-larger menus of classes to take and degrees to earn.

Not to defend el Jeebs, but that's St Paul talking.

edit: unless you're of the @shinyblurry school of Biblical scholarship, in which case every word - sorry, Word - in the Bible is God's.

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^bareboards2:
Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.

Jesus wasn't a sexist?
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim 2:11-12)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. ( Eph. 5:22-24)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. ( 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

They need to do a couple things to help this country's post secondary education system imho

1) Make college education more accessible and less costly

2) Incentivize those H1B visa students to stay in the country with scholarships, etc.

"We have copies of the early manuscripts so we know what the original bibles looked like. So the translations today are accurate, and this idea that they are corrupt is just outright false."

This statement betrays your profound lack of scholarship on the subject of the bible.