FUTURE! I like it.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
*future

States and local governments can run schools without any federal help, and they did in the past. Most public schools get only a small percentage of their funding from the federal government. Local boards of education are elected locally without much interference by the federal government.

As soon as any school takes so much as a penny from the federal mafia, they are forced to play by the feds' rules. And even if they don't, they are weighted down by edicts from on high, including the NCLB baloney. Local schools boards with electable positions? Sounds like more of the same-o. Compulsory state education means no ingenuity or merit for finding better ways to teach and learn; making sure everyone is doing the exact same thing even when it doesn't work. Schools should be like restaurants...with many trying to make it and the most successful doing so by offering something of measurable quality.

Show me competitive private services that can deliver your letters anywhere in the USA for 41 cents and I'll support your plan to scrap the USPS. There's nothing preventing Fedex and UPS from trying that right now, except that they can't do it that cheap.

Actually, the post office monopoly prevents FedEx and UPS from delivering any letter-sized envelope for the present rate or less; one of postal inspectors' major tasks is to make sure their monopoly is protected by spying on UPS and FedEx. You wouldn't have to disband the post office, just by ridding its artificial barrier I think it would die out on its own.

Your argument against the infrastructure and such has some merit, I'm sure it was used when FedEx got started. Yet here they are, competing with one of the world's largest government boondoggles. FedEx and UPS either turn a profit or die. The USPS, without any incentive to do better, loses BILLIONS of dollars every year. They would not last a year without the law.

This is the same congress that pays a chaplain tens of thousands of dollars a year to lead a prayer every time Congress is called in to session. This is the same congress that almost unanimously passed a condemnation of Newdow's legal attempt to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version (the Pledge didn't say "under God" before 1954). This is the same congress that funds Bush's OFBCI. The supreme court has been very clear that students can pray by themselves as much as they want on their own lunch break but official prayer-times when taxpayer-funded teachers entice students to pray are unconstitutional.

And these are things that truly offend you and depreciate the quality of your life? Freedom FROM religion is a gross distortion of the Founders' intent. Tyranny of the minority. I hate to say it like this, but atheism does not represent something "better" than religion. It doesn't offer any moral foundation or transmit societal values. That's why IMAO, there's never been a successful majority atheist society (I'm aware of). I write this as a former atheist. I know what is to be gained by being free of superstition, but I also know society is extremely fragile, and will die without its delusions. If atheists succeed in "getting rid" of religion, life will be worse for them as well.

We're in far more danger of becoming a socialist state than a theocracy. It may happen peacefully and even "legally" if enough people are convinced (to their detriment) that socialism is the way to go.

Those aren't even mutually exclusive. Jesus Christ was a socialist. Jesus Christ gave all kinds of handouts to the poor and asked something in return. He asked people to give all they could to the church and the poor. That's a taxing-and-spending entitlement system. Huckabee, the Christian fundamentalist, was also in agreement with the Democrats on most economic issues. Iran, which is officially a Theocracy ruled by the Ayatollah, also heavily subsidizes the cost of food, which you might call Socialist.

Jesus gave handouts but did not take them from others by force beforehand. He asked people to give, but did not threaten or curse them for not doing so. Most importantly, Jesus did not ever say that government's role is providing the means to help the poor.

Despite its failures due to humans being imperfect, (moderately regulated) free market capitalism has done more to lift the poor out of poverty than any other system. And I'm speaking from near the bottom of the ladder, my friend. I know times is tight for you too right now...

In reply to this comment by jwray:

#1 was part of Bush's platform and one of the first things he did after his inauguration, and #5 has little to do with the federal government or the commerce clause of the federal constitution. #5 is about local elections being influenced by religious extremists who believe the world is 6000 years old and vote Republican in part because Republican-appointed judges are less likely to see the establishment clause violation in replacing part of the science curriculum with the Old Testament.

It has everything to do with the federal mafia's "education" racket. If education was completely privatized the way it should be, all these activists and do-gooders--including the federal mafia--would be sh't out of luck. All the activists could do is start schools of their own. Wouldn't you like to see if an atheistic academy can compete with a religious one?

The OFBCI has never given a grant to a non-christian religious organization. It's purpose is very clear: to provide federal funding for Bush's version of Christianity.

What can I say, the government creates something and says, "Here are the self-imposed limits" and then crosses the line the next day. Plenty of government entities are unconstitutional by their very existence. You happen to have a problem with the OFBCI, I'm ready to see the NEA scrapped along with the post office monopoly, among others.

3. The "meddling" failed, nor was there any change in the laws.

Republican meddling failed because of public opposition to it, but the public hadn't the consistency to take anti-euthanasia laws off the books.

Schiavo was a confusing, horrific affair. Euthanasia laws are more complex than a religious view versus, what exactly? It's very easy to make the leap to the State deciding to pull plugs on costly coma patients. Even if Republicans instigated the interference, a majority opposed federal intervention which probably included conservatives as well.

#4 and #6 are the result of the values of the majority of the people. I don't necessarily agree with them. There are other reasons besides religious ones for the banning of gay marriage.

The bill of rights exists to prevent tyranny of the majority. More than 80% of US Citizens are christian, therefore we must be very careful not to create a christian theocracy.

I see no immediate danger of that happening with a Congress and Supremes hostile to even the mention of religion in schools and public arenas. We're in far more danger of becoming a socialist state than a theocracy. It may happen peacefully and even "legally" if enough people are convinced (to their detriment) that socialism is the way to go.


Global warming has been steadily taking place since the last Ice Age. Nothing so far is outside the normal range of expected activity. Even the scientists who believe GW is man-made or influenced admit the effects of wrecking the world's economies with Kyoto and other protocols would not make a significant difference in the warming trend, nor do they predict seas rising more than a foot by 2100. What other logical conclusion could one reach then, except those foisting the hysteria on the world are seeking power?


In reply to this comment by jwray:
Well, #'s 1. and 5. I have to dismiss out-of-hand...

.

Sorry I haven't responded to your latest message. I have read it a few times over and am processing...

In reply to this comment by jwray:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom
NO, but curiously "by law", public tv is supposed to be "balanced." It is not, but that's government. I don't mind liberal viewpoints on PBS or anywhere else, but there's no debate if there's no one speaking for the other side.

Yes, but should it be balanced between creationism and evolution, or balanced between flat-earth theory and round-earth theory? Should it be balanced between astrology and astronomy?

I don't see evangelicals as having the kind of impact or posing the kind of threat liberals credit them with being. The so-called Religious Right has no legislation out there that's getting anywhere

These are some things the Religious Right has helped do lately:

1. Abstinence-only sex education that wastes billions of federal dollars while preserving ignorance about sex.
2. The creation of the OFBCI for the sole purpose of funneling federal dollars into Evangelical Christian organizations.
3. Meddling in the Schaivo family.
4. Many successful ballot initiatives in states, prohibiting gay marriage.
5. Electing a few boards of education that want to teach creationism instead of evolution
6. Keeping anti-sodomy laws on the books, including seldom-enforced laws against oral sex.



Both sides accuse the others' scientists of being paid shills. 'Denial of global warming' implies there's solid proof of anthropogenic global warming. So far that's not the case; there is only a consensus among a portion of scientists. The thing I'm not keen on is the GW proponents, after suggesting the price tage for a "cleanup" of water vapor would be 45 trillion worldwide, also admit the positive effects of a Kyoto would be minimal at best.

Which "GW proponent" suggested removing water vapor from the atmosphere to combat global warming? That's daft. Do you at least agree that the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 is anthropogenic?
graph

The ice core records show that CO2 levels never exceeded 305ppm during the ice age cycles of the previous million years.

I suspect that if you actually put it to referendum, most of the public would not support kicking Bill Moyers out of PBS.

I don't know if enough people would care either way. That's not a dig on Moyers, it's just the way things are.

PBS is not required to stay silent on politics, especially now that most important facts about the world are in some way politicized.

NO, but curiously "by law", public tv is supposed to be "balanced." It is not, but that's government. I don't mind liberal viewpoints on PBS or anywhere else, but there's no debate if there's no one speaking for the other side.

Biology is politicized (creation vs. evolution), meteorology is politicized (denial of global warming), geology is politicized (young-earth evangelical right-wingers vs. scientists), medicine is politicized (why are certain diseases thousands of times more common in developed countries than in wilderness -- pollution and industry, or lifestyle?), math is politicized (Bush disdains the study of math beyond calculus, as he implied in the 2000 debate). It's virtually impossible to do any kind of reporting without tainting it with your own knowledge of the world, which could be perceived by anybody who disagrees as political bias.

Well, it is said everything is political. I don't see evangelicals as having the kind of impact or posing the kind of threat liberals credit them with being. The so-called Religious Right has no legislation out there that's getting anywhere, while on the other side of the aisle the legislating is nonstop, and when that flops, activist judges simply change the laws to suit their needs. Six of the judges that "legalized" gay marriage in CA were supposedly R's.

Both sides accuse the others' scientists of being paid shills. 'Denial of global warming' implies there's solid proof of anthropogenic global warming. So far that's not the case; there is only a consensus among a portion of scientists. The thing I'm not keen on is the GW proponents, after suggesting the price tage for a "cleanup" of water vapor would be 45 trillion worldwide, also admit the positive effects of a Kyoto would be minimal at best.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
I suspect that if you actually put it to referendum, most of the public would not support kicking Bill Moyers out of PBS....

Of course he's liberal, but nothing he said in those links was wrong.

The 2nd link had it right...

"Bill Moyers is, as Dan Rather would say - a partisan political operative, cloaked in the auspices of a journalist taking tax money from the public against the will of the majority."

...my point all along.

And last time I checked, Fox news and the reactionary "new media" aren't taking over. Huffington Post, CrooksAndLiars.com, and Daily Kos each have more hits per day than Free Republic, National Review, or Michelle Malkin. Huffington Post gets more hits than MM, NR, and Freep combined times 3. Slate.com, which is definitely to the left of Fox, gets more hits than MM, NR, and Freep combined, but half as much as Huffington Post. TheDailyShow.com gets 10 times as many hits as billoreilly.com. This is all from Alexa.

The miracle is there's any center/right-of-center content at all. Coming full circle, 20 years ago Moyers wouldn't have to deal with any resistance. The ratings/numbers aren't a big deal, sensationalism versus truth.

Thanks for writing. I appreciate your willingness to debate and/or offer an alternative point of view to my alternative point of view. haha!

Heya, the google link isnt working for me, I wonder if you can link to the other parts of this.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Full-video-Kucinich-presents-articles-of-impeachment

Depends how you define "false." I'm not saying he's a "liar", I'm saying he's a "liberal" and his number is up, thanks to the new media.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/009475.php

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2007/08/24/moyers-spanked-again-pbs-ombud

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/05/14/moyers-tavis-smiley-discuss-fall-american-empire-pbs

I really don't mind Moyers, except for his on/off denial of his own bias and his using taxpaid PBS as his pulpit.


In reply to this comment by jwray:
Give three actual examples of false statements Bill Moyers has publicly made in the last 10 years, if you can.

word.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
my mistake.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You downvoted my comment on this video, and then you elaborated on the same point I was making.

?

In reply to this comment by jwray:
Alienation does not elicit the truthtelling. Unfalsifiable stories are easily fabricated. Torture does not work. A slow process of building rapport does work.

You downvoted my comment on this video, and then you elaborated on the same point I was making.

?

In reply to this comment by jwray:
Alienation does not elicit the truthtelling. Unfalsifiable stories are easily fabricated. Torture does not work. A slow process of building rapport does work.

http://happy.videosift.com/talk/ITS-ZOMBIES-TIMEMr-Zonbie-Reaches-a-100-Come-Here

Thanks for the second promote jwray

In reply to this comment by jwray:
*promote

thanks..fascinating how truthy it feels, as a metaphor.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
the frogs in slowly boiling water myth was debunked by Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

ty

In reply to this comment by jwray:
Prince's "When Doves Cry"