Your avatar colours scream early 90's

I read the wiki article you posted, it says the opposite of what you suggest. That pre-1980, they had no ability to generate policy...they just gathered information. Do you have a link to something that talks about the freemarkety nature in the 80s?, because that link doesn't have it. Unless you are just talking about Regan doing free market stuff on the whole affecting education somehow indirectly, but the link clearly says he made it a federal government responsibility to create educational policy in the 80s. In that, I don't know that your argument fully answers @Grimm's claim that educational stardards have gone down since federal policy making has been done. We aren't talking about free markets here, even at the state level. We are talking about who makes better policies affecting children's education; federal or state. It has also been of my opinion that for important things, eggs in one basket methodologies are dangerous. Best to have a billion little educational experiments boiling around the country, cooking up information that the rest of them can turn around and use. Waiting for a federal mandate to adopt a policy can be rather tedious.

I have some friends that are educators, I will have to ask them how they feel about this. It is easy for us to have an opinion based on raw idealism of our core beliefs, but I would be interested to see what certain teachers have to say. I met a real interesting person at my friends bachelor party. He came from a union state, and moved down here to Texas, we have teachers unions and things, but they aren't as powerful as the north. He experienced a complete change in himself. He found that his own involvement in his union happened in such a way where he basically held the kids education hostage over wages. He said that is was basically the accepted role of teachers to risk children's education over pay. I am not talking about just normal pay, but he was making 50k as a grade school teacher in the early 90s. Not suggesting this is normal, but it is something we don't copy here in Texas. As for his own mind, he knows he would never teach in that area of the country again, and would never suggest anyone move their that values their children's education.

What would be interesting to me is if the absence of the DOE would break down some of the red tape and allow schools to "get creative" with programs a federal political body might not want to take a risk on. Education is to important to fail on, and applying "to big to fail" kind of logic to a failing system of education is to much politics to play for me. Empower teachers and schools, and try to avoid paying as many non-educators as possible would be one way to improve things I would wager. What aspect of the DOE do you think is successful that we need to keep exactly? I mean, I can tell you I don't like that the DOD is so huge and powerful, but I know nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can't operate themselves. What necessarily component of the DOE do you see as necessarily, beyond just talking point of either party line stance of it? I mean, the Department of Energy's main goal was to get us off foreign oil, like a long time ago, that is pretty failed as much as the DOE. Different approach needed, or a massive rethinking of the current one. You don't usually get massive rethinking nationally of any coherent nature, which is why I think a local strategy might be a good way to go here. Perhaps then, you could have that initial part of the DOE before it became the DOE of providing information to schools about what works from other schools kick in again.

This kind of talk of "Ron Paul addresses none of this" about something that isn't related exactly isn't really fair. It is like trying to talk about income tax issues and saying changing them doesn't address the issue of the military war machine...well of course not, it is a different issue. Did you see that recent Greewald video where he talks about the founders did think that massive inequality was not only permissible, but the idea...just as long as the rules were the same for everyone? What I mean to say is that there does need to be a measure of fairness, but that fairness needs to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. I still say the real problem lay in the government creating the monster first and the monster is now eating us. If legislators simply refused to accept the legitimacy of corporate entities and instead say that only individuals can deal on the behalf of themselves with the govenrment(the elimination of the corporate charter as it refers to its relationship to the government) things could get better in a day. But since the good ol USA thinks that non-people entities are people, well, I don't see much hope for restoration. Money is the new government, rule of law is dead. I liked the recent Greenwald input on this. Rant over Sorry, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here, didn't plan out an actual goal or endpoint of my ideas....just a huge, burdensome wall of text

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

My mom listened to classic Bolton non stop in the car back in the early 90's. I had no choice, I was stuck with it. This is why almost 20 years later the lyrics come to me naturally... like breathing.

One thing I will note---being homosexual is not a choice and neither is being a certain race.

With that said, overweight individuals, a lot of which are online, make me sad. You can't talk much about the issue without offense. Smokers? Sure, that's disgusting...

Yet, it costs America (And therefore me, my friends and family) billions in healthcare, it costs sons and daughters their mothers and fathers. It costs children their health for life (And yet parents can't even admit their children are overweight...)

The toll is, pardon the expression, heavy. And there are only a handful of people that have the excuse that genetics cause their weight.

I have suffered to keep the weight off. I have stopped all soda, and most alcoholic beverages. I have cut down on eating and changed what I have eaten into what I don't like eating. 40% of Americans are overweight---we can't afford it.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
talks
I can't remember who it was, but a comedian back in the late 80s or early 90s used to say, "I think racism is stupid because there are so many good reasons to hate people on an individual basis."

I saw the description on YouTube was pointing to someone who calls themselves thatfatatheist, but the uploader was TheAmazingAtheist. Do you know if it's the same guy?

Never heard of thatfatatheist. I just assumed you were making a joke about TAA.
edit: but after visiting thatfatatheist.com, it certainly seems they are.

I'm a pretty jokey guy, but you will never see me making fun of over-weight people, LBGT people, or other races (because of their race--at least ). Not that you could know that about someone online. Just wanted to let you know that about me.
Sift On, Dude. (Hey, your screen name reminds me of a weather chart)

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
talks
I can't remember who it was, but a comedian back in the late 80s or early 90s used to say, "I think racism is stupid because there are so many good reasons to hate people on an individual basis."

I saw the description on YouTube was pointing to someone who calls themselves thatfatatheist, but the uploader was TheAmazingAtheist. Do you know if it's the same guy?

Never heard of thatfatatheist. I just assumed you were making a joke about TAA.
edit: but after visiting thatfatatheist.com, it certainly seems they are.


I'm a pretty jokey guy, but you will never see me making fun of over-weight people, LBGT people, or other races (because of their race--at least ). Not that you could know that about someone online. Just wanted to let you know that about me.

Sift On, Dude. (Hey, your screen name reminds me of a weather chart)

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
talks
I can't remember who it was, but a comedian back in the late 80s or early 90s used to say, "I think racism is stupid because there are so many good reasons to hate people on an individual basis."

I saw the description on YouTube was pointing to someone who calls themselves thatfatatheist, but the uploader was TheAmazingAtheist. Do you know if it's the same guy?


Never heard of thatfatatheist. I just assumed you were making a joke about TAA.

edit: but after visiting thatfatatheist.com, it certainly seems they are.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

talks
I can't remember who it was, but a comedian back in the late 80s or early 90s used to say, "I think racism is stupid because there are so many good reasons to hate people on an individual basis."


I saw the description on YouTube was pointing to someone who calls themselves thatfatatheist, but the uploader was TheAmazingAtheist. Do you know if it's the same guy?

*talks

I can't remember who it was, but a comedian back in the late 80s or early 90s used to say, "I think racism is stupid because there are so many good reasons to hate people on an individual basis."

This reminds me so much of the cheesy action movies of the 80's and early 90's. I can't help thinking what might have happened if they'd used the classical sound with a choir slowly singing in latin rather than synth-pop. They might suddenly become more serious and epic!

i'm not sure if that still works. kind of funny in the early 90s, but now?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That's quite odd- I just watched Swingers again myself a couple of days ago on Netflix. you're so money, baby.

I think The Club died out in the early 90s when it was realized how easy they are to circumvent.

This potrayal was a revelation in the early 90s. I was right on top of the animated series when it was new, watching each episode multiple times. Possibly the best animation put on TV in the 90s.

The reason we haven't seen this act since the early 90s is because the smoking cancer must have caught up with this guy.

No excuse, This was petty harassment. I do believe the term is, "Official Oppression" This should never be allowed to happen. The police are saying that if you support this woman we will find a way to fine you for whatever we can think of. I love this quote from their union.
"Rochester Police Union President Mike Mazzeo said the officer in question repeatedly told Miss Good he felt threatened by her presence."
So? If you feel threatened by someone filming you then maybe your doing something wrong? If not then why are you feeling threatened? I person with a camera is not a threat unless your doing something wrong. If an officer pulled over a driver for whatever reason and the drive stated he felt threatened by the dash cam how do you think that officer would respond?

Also, almost EVERY cell phone made now has a built in camera that can take pictures and video. No matter how much you want to stop it. Its far to late. In the early 90's my last year a collage. I walked everywhere with a video camera. Not only did the local police not care. (If I ever find that tape its going to be youtube gold) I have several shots of motorcycle cops dancing in the street waving and having a blast. On a Monday night.


Claiming they just enforcing the law is pure bullshit. They chose to be petty. They chose to harass people. Its not a valid excuse. The guards at Auschwitz claimed they were only following orders. Ya, a bit over the top but i feel nothing nails that BS excuse mentality better.

You've got to give it up for Neil Peart. He is a legend and a great influence to any drummer that grew up in the 70's/80's/early 90's. That said, there has always been criticism of his lack of spontaneity. Most drummers will change up parts and fills from one performance to the next, but Neil Peart always plays the exact same parts, fills and open solos. Of course they are well composed and appropriate to Rush's elaborate songs, so there is a good case to be made for the strict consistency.

@RadHazG - Most of the time I feel the same way - and I play drums for a living. The problem is that it is difficult to create a moving musical experience with unpitched percussion instruments. Most of the time, drum solos end up being disjointed displays of virtuosity, which are technically impressive but lacking from an aesthetic standpoint.

There are some great drummers out there who really know how to emote. Elvin Jones, Jack Dejohonette, Vinnie Colliuta, Terry Bozio (Zappa knew how to pick his drummers) and Peter Erskine are some of my favorites in this category.