Not sure if you're trolling or not, but if you'd read the links I posted it's clearly spelled out--with research-backed evidence--how and why Finland's system is one of the best in the world. You show me good empirical research that less government involvement produces the amazing gains not just in academic performance but overall societal well-being (i.e. happiness) that Finland has shown in the past decade and maybe we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise, I'll take well-conducted research over politically-biased speculation any day of the week.
>> ^renatojj:



You guys might want to consider that the right path is not Finland, but going the other direction, with less government involvement in education. This is about putting education and its institutions in a more competitive environment, governments will always bog them down, making it more about teachers or whatever else, turning them into the massive faceless institutions that are like prisons like @dag points out. Instead, we should put on schools the pressure to compete in quality and price for those who'd normally be paying for education, the students or their parents.
Mintbbb points out that bullying does exist in Finland, even though they have a lot less of it. A finnish friend of mine once told me he never saw a fist fight in his entire life, ever, not even as a kid. However, just because they had the decency of adopting anti-bullying measures, doesn't mean letting government educate and make choices for our kids is any better, don't let that fool you. Bullying has been going on for so long it's become an institution in itself, public schools in America and elsewhere have little incentive of stopping or even acknowledging it as a problem.

lol his sunburn and hit by buss example are so dumb , the fact is if you could chose you would not have ethor of those things happen to you , and there is a clear difference between accepting things that happen to you by random chance against your will , and then actively doing something that's a permanent alteration.

Not that it matters if sum-one wants to get a tatoo I don't care , but the resoin i wouldnt get a tatoo of say a specifc idea or political concept or what have you is that Im then commiting myself to that idea or as a permiment mark and i think its not very open minded to lock yourself into a certain mind set , you dont know what evidence will change the way you think in the future or what you might identify yourself with as your brain changes with age.

If we didn't have portable maps and portable computers I could definitely see how tatoing diograms and math on you could help though , and if you don't have the ablty to make or ware intricate clothing and its important to show you belong to x tribe or have some form of ID then I can see how that makes perfect sense as well.

on the purely visual art side the perminet aspect of the tatoo is not a banoficail thing might as well just use semi perminent body paint and that way you get the best of both worlds.

@swedishfriend

1. "Compared to their native Swedish peers, immigrant students, on average, have weaker education outcomes at all levels of education. Nearing the end of compulsory education, at age 15, there are very significant performance disadvantages for immigrant students." Source.



2a. Generally, in the modern era, the achievement gap between the descendants of immigrants and the host population correlates with the achievement gap between the immigrants' nation of origin and the host nation. For example, expect US achievement gaps to be with us for the long-term:
NYT: "Triumph Fades on Racial Gap in City Schools"

2b. US school test scores are virtually the best in the world once you break down test scores by region of ancestry. Asian Americans do better than Asians in Asia; Latino Americans do better than Latinos in Latin America; African Americans do better than Africans in Africa; European Americans do better than Europeans in Europe. The illusion that US scores aren't the best in the world is caused by the demographic composition of the US, not by US school policy.

2c. Indeed, as expected from the US's dominance of international test scores (once broken down by country of origin), descendants of Swedes living in Minnesota significantly outperform Swedes living in Sweden. (Search that post for "achievement gap" to read more about the achievement gap in Sweden between natives and descendants of immigants.)



3. Exceptions: US Muslims, such as Iranian-Americans, significantly outperform other US groups, including the majority group, because they were drawn from high performers in their country of origin, such as scientists.

Well you're wrong on all counts. The theory of evolution is completely incompatible with scripture, and redemptive history.


I fully agree with shinyblurry here. When you combine Christian creationism and evolution in this way, it's not like you get the best of both worlds or something - you just get an inconsistent mess.

I mean, if you believe in the Christian God - if you've already accepted that - then why not go all the way and believe the Bible about how creation happened? And if you doubt, if you don't believe the Bible is true or that creation happened the way the Bible says (or whatever), then you need to re-inspect your overall beliefs because the Christian God doesn't accept half believers.

Shinyblurry's bible reference to being "lukewarm" (Revelations 3:16, I assume, is what he was hinting at) is very apropos: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." The Bible spends a lot of time here and elsewhere explaining that you can't have it both ways. Indeed, I think He's probably more lenient on people who don't believe at all (just my opinion).

>> ^blankfist:

Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

Seriously blankie, what's with the hostility? Forgive me for just this once talking like a normal person and saying "all" when I should've said "disproportionately."

I was mostly just asking about whether you thought immigrants were a special class of people with different demographics than the indigenous population, because I don't see the how you link immigration to the solvency of a social safety net unless you presuppose that immigrants are either going to be disproportionately poor, or disproportionately likely to commit some form of fraud (tax or entitlement).

>> ^blankfist:
It's not that "all" immigrants are poor, it's that if you were poor and you realized you could go somewhere and have access to things you'd not normally have access to, then what're the odds of you exploiting that?
It's a numbers game. The more you allow for exploits in a system, the more it'll be exploited. Etc. Same goes with citizenry and citizenry birth. But the real difference, I believe, is that if you are stable in your home country, you're probably less likely to migrate somewhere just for the entitlements. The opposite is probably more likely however if you're not stable. Is that not a reasonable assumption?


So here's the part where I walk on eggshells and gently point out that you do seem to be saying that immigrants will be disproportionately likely to be poor or commit fraud.

You're also tossing in that you think native born citizens will be that way too. If that's the case, then we're back to "so what does immigration have to do with anything?"


Let's say we turned America into a Finnish-style welfare state -- taxes are high, infrastructure is modern and in good repair, our public schools are the best in the world, our health care system is both cost effective and provides quality care, unemployment is low, our budget is in surplus, our unemployment benefits are generous (and have no time limit), and we have a growing private sector with a heavy technology focus.

If we then threw the gates wide open on immigration, I think you're right; most of the people coming here would be poorer than the average American, and at least in the short run, it'd be bad for the government's net fiscal situation -- more people on welfare, without a completely offsetting tax revenue increase.

But over the long run, I think the situation would reverse. The immigrants and their children would get a free, quality education. They'd get first class health care. They'd have access to public transportation, and a healthy jobs market. For the most part, they'd "exploit" the advantages offered to them to bootstrap themselves into a more productive, wealthier, tax-paying lifestyle. In the long run, the state's investments in the human capital of those immigrants would pay dividends that go beyond mere economic growth, it'd also diversify and enrich the culture of their nation, and bring new ideas and different ways of thinking into the shared project of their society.

Which is to say, I don't think immigration poses a fiscal problem for welfare states.

Bigotry on the other hand, that poses a problem for left-wing policies of all kinds. I don't really think that's a strike against the policies of the left though.

Best of both worlds would be to have the laptop at home and use the tablet mainly on the road and both sync or work seamlessly together. Pity Microsoft can't sort that out for Windows users.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Seriously? I've seen plenty of videos of people that can't sing. This guy isn't the best in the world, but he's pretty good.>> ^DerHasisttot:
Strange. A few days ago I already commented on the same vid that the guy can't sing. But I can't find it, so this is not a dupe :-)



Agreed. For that matter, a huge number of the most popular and influential musicians of all time can't sing very well.

Personality and style is much more important than having a "good" voice, and Fredde has it in spades.

Seriously? I've seen plenty of videos of people that can't sing. This guy isn't the best in the world, but he's pretty good.>> ^DerHasisttot:

Strange. A few days ago I already commented on the same vid that the guy can't sing. But I can't find it, so this is not a dupe :-)

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

He wants to be President, and? You imply he is a worse choice than say, the current President (Who has left open a facility to torture, predominately, Muslims,) or the President/s before him (a President who used a degree to fight two wars without batting an eye as to why.) I would hope you can admit he would have been FAR better than Obama or Bush…

So Paul has an issue with property rights and the government telling you what to do? Thoreau also had problems with that line of thought. I think the greater part of their argument, that he fails to articulate, is that---when a government takes power, it always takes more power in time. And when it has the power, it finds a way to abuse it. We see that has happened.

Oh, and I am so glad that the law in 1964 protects minorities... except that the wealthy and white have found 1 million loopholes around it with other laws... Blacks commit a crime? More punishment and jail time than a white. Blacks need a job? No, go away... How about, blacks need welfare? Sure, so long as you don't make anything of yourself. WE STILL HAVE JIM CROW LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY. GET OVER IT. ONLY SOCIETY AT LARGE CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM. AND WE WON’T, BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO.

So glad that the useless law does something ineffectively... Oh, and go to certain bars in PA as a black man, and lets see how far the patrons let you go before removing you. Glad that a law will protect your rights as your being stabbed to death--then protects him as the white, racist judge laughs and acquits his friends.

I also think the problem; we don’t ask, what is the principle behind Paul’s actions? Racism? No... Nor greed (The reason pot is illegal, for example.) It is relying on humanity to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as so often the case, Humanity is horrible (See Rome, genocide, and religion)--and we blame Paul for being naive; and he is. But so are we. Instead of holding accountability to the sign holders we laugh at Paul’s ignorance. Instead of blaming the murderer, or rapist, we blame the politicians who have not put laws out there to "protect us.”

Kind of like--"Well, she was wearing slutty clothes so we should blame her for being raped!" I know, I know, that is a far-fetched comparison, but it still fits to some degree. Both people do not deserve to be attacked for their statements (One who was making a statement by dressing physically attractive, and the other one who makes a statement verbally with good intentions.) But, as is the case, people do punish both in society.

I think Paul would be better off being a liar so he could actually get elected--because, though people may do it unintentionally, they elect the bad guy because the good guy always loses. But then, if he did become a winner through deception, he would just be another in a mold of thousands.

The funny part is that in matters such as this, Paul would have no sway in the agenda; he would only have a say in matters of Liberal agendas (Close Gitmo, stop wars, debt, cut down the drug war, end the Patriot Act., etc.) So even if you did elect him, Netrunner, you would get the best of both worlds. No gold standard, but most of your agenda would be fulfilled… Of course, Liberals suck at thinking logically (Even the part of me that is liberal, and there is quite a bit, has this problem.)

Speaking of society, here is my example…
http://videosift.com/video/The-new-Olympic-sport-Cunt-Punching

>> ^raverman:

Music as an 'art form' requires artistic talent and skill to be considered "good". The various skills necessary to be a talented singer are well known and documented.
This can only be classed as Entertainment... people are entitled to enjoy it much as they would America's funniest home videos, a bad pun, or a children's clown act.
But it's not Musical Art as it includes no skill or talent.


If we were to only talk about singing then you could say the same about Bob Dylan, Jimmi Hendrix, Lou Reed, or hundreds of other obviously talented people.

Her singing is not the best in the world, but it's certainly good enough to be a part of a music project of some kind.

>> ^bamdrew:

>> ^westy:
I much prefer worlds that are ultra clean like mirrors edge or portal but whats fantastic is if u have a world that is for the most part clean but then have small cracks in it or aspects that are of contrast to that , that way u get the best of both worlds and the game dosent just feal like everything is coated in mud. with any luck portal 2 might have got this right.

Cool point; reminds me of the secret area behind the walls in Portal 1,... 'the cake is a lie!'


yah to me Portal 1 is the only grate FPS since Half life 1 in terms of subtaly delivering a plot thats not insulting to the players inteligence and works with the current techncal limitations Mirrors edge could have easily have done it but the story was retarded and pushed into the game in a really unnatural and lazy way.

>> ^westy:

I much prefer worlds that are ultra clean like mirrors edge or portal but whats fantastic is if u have a world that is for the most part clean but then have small cracks in it or aspects that are of contrast to that , that way u get the best of both worlds and the game dosent just feal like everything is coated in mud. with any luck portal 2 might have got this right.


Cool point; reminds me of the secret area behind the walls in Portal 1,... 'the cake is a lie!'

>> ^westy:

Game play looks really dull to me , also animation looks really smooth but in a really artaficail way allot of these modern shooters just dont make sense. personally I ether want something like serous sam where its basically gemotray wars but in first person , or i want something thats like HL1 a mixture of shooting but within the context of level based puzzles and a subtly delivered story.
the other thing is that although technically i'm sure the engine is fantastic but visually the art direction is tired. kind of how u have allot of cinema where it all just looks the same. Im board of post apocalyptic stuff in games especially in action games where there is so much noise on the screen in the form of pipes bushes random crap that it just make splaying the game a strain. (fallout , Gears of war , Unreal 3 , Bulit storm , borderlands) ( although borderlands is not as bad as they did a more cartoony thing with it so it stands out more)
I much prefer worlds that are ultra clean like mirrors edge or portal but whats fantastic is if u have a world that is for the most part clean but then have small cracks in it or aspects that are of contrast to that , that way u get the best of both worlds and the game dosent just feal like everything is coated in mud. with any luck portal 2 might have got this right.


Yeah, I am not attached to this game. I hope they release a playable demo/beta to sample it.

Game play looks really dull to me , also animation looks really smooth but in a really artaficail way allot of these modern shooters just dont make sense. personally I ether want something like serous sam where its basically gemotray wars but in first person , or i want something thats like HL1 a mixture of shooting but within the context of level based puzzles and a subtly delivered story.

the other thing is that although technically i'm sure the engine is fantastic but visually the art direction is tired. kind of how u have allot of cinema where it all just looks the same. Im board of post apocalyptic stuff in games especially in action games where there is so much noise on the screen in the form of pipes bushes random crap that it just make splaying the game a strain. (fallout , Gears of war , Unreal 3 , Bulit storm , borderlands) ( although borderlands is not as bad as they did a more cartoony thing with it so it stands out more)

I much prefer worlds that are ultra clean like mirrors edge or portal but whats fantastic is if u have a world that is for the most part clean but then have small cracks in it or aspects that are of contrast to that , that way u get the best of both worlds and the game dosent just feal like everything is coated in mud. with any luck portal 2 might have got this right.

@chilaxe, what sub-culture are you referring to? Why are you assuming that the only factor in hiring political appointees to cabinet-level positions would be cognitive ability? Seems to me management skills, loyalty, and ideological compatibility would matter a lot more, even to politicians I like, than cognitive ability.

In any case, I think you're fundamentally asking the wrong question. Someone working for Kasich must have mentioned that this would be an issue, politically. If it was a matter of Kasich wanting to appoint someone, but wasn't able to find even one qualified non-white conservative to give a position to, then I sorta sympathize with him. He's just a victim of the larger conservative movement's hostility to anyone who isn't Caucasian.

Thing is, he seems to be relishing the fight. Going so far as to respond to a black Democrat who offered to help him with building a more diverse cabinet, he said "I don't need your people." He later released a clarifying statement that by "your people" he meant Democrats, but the damage was already done.

You see, my theory isn't that Kasich himself is necessarily racist. My theory is that he, and the Republican party in general, seek the support of racists. Better still, they seek to portray white people as being somehow persecuted by minorities and their liberal allies.

That's why he pushed back when people questioned him about it. He's not excluding black people, he's just hiring the most qualified people, and obviously that means blacks won't make the cut. If he thought he could've gotten away with it, he'd have made the same bell-curve argument you were hinting at, but that would've been too overt. The dog whistle is only meant to be heard by the people who know what they're listening for, not by normal people who find racism abhorrent.

Now he gets the best of both worlds. The racists can think that he only let a black man in his cabinet because he got pressured by the black community (persecution!), and the rest of the conservatives can go "see, he's not racist, I don't know why those pesky Democrats made such a fuss about it."

It's the state of the art in racial politics. You undermine legitimate claims by painting them as partisan politics, while at the same time you push veiled racist arguments into the mainstream (I'm not hiring a token black guy...because that's all they could possibly be, a token).

It's genius. Evil, but genius none the less.