|
Hmmm, can we move on to a different controversial subject? The legalization of drugs.
I am mostly in favor of this. The War on Drugs is one of the most expensive the federal government has run, and it has given police powers well beyond those intended by the Founding Fathers. In a way, it has given police military powers.
Of course, a President Paul wouldn't be able to do anything about states making drugs illegal, but could prevent Federal Enforcement of drug wars when states have made it legal, such as in California where there is use of medical marijuana.
I also think that the market can solve some of these problems if the states do determine that legalizing drugs for their citizens is what the citizens want. I would be in favor of a privately owned organization focused on drug and ethnobotanical education. There are a number of drugs out there that if used in properly controlled environments are not at all harmful. I'm thinking Salvia Divinorum.
But LSD, Heroine, and Cocaine both have extremely fatal and harmful side effects. LSD-assisted Psychotherapy works wonders for people with deeply subverted and subconscious issues such as repressed memories, or subconscious attitudes formed by memories or experiences of events. The Cell demonstrates what LSD-assisted Psychotherapy might look like.
State laws should definitely exist against Drug Abuse, but I do not think that certain drug usages should quality as Drug Abuse. Abuse of a drug is an uncontrolled, uncontained, or inappropriate use of that drug. Minors, or those who have not exhibited the responsibility that might come with drug use, should be restricted from using drugs.
Although, so far I don't see anything specifically wrong with the use of Egyptian Blue Lotus, by anyone. It's not a controlled substance in most states, however, and I don't really see any reason why it should be. There may be times when it would be dangerous to use it, due to differences in physical perception it can cause. For example in extreme heat or extreme cold conditions, it would probably not be a good idea to use it. But alcohol is the same way.
Oh, and in accordance with posting guidelines, I must discourage anyone from using controlled substances illegal by state or federal laws.
Hmmm, can we move on to a different controversial subject? The legalization of drugs.
[bubble bubble bubble]
Better living through chemistry! Yay!
[bubble bubble bubble]
Oh, and in accordance with posting guidelines...
I made sure to drive to Massachusetts where [bubble bubble bubble] is decriminalized to post this; don't flag me!
I presume national ranking are overwhelmingly reflections of government schools, and I presume we are largely comparing apples to apples as it were.
I'm not sure how it works in Korea, for instance, these days, but I know in the US private schools and home schools grossly out perform public education for less money (sometimes far less), but the vast majority of kids are trapped in the failing traditional public school model.
I can't give you % for Canada, as it varies from province to province and even city to city.
The city I grew up in (Saskatoon) has two school boards, a "pubic" (secular) and "separate" (Catholic). There were more public high schools (about 6 or 7) than separate (2) when I was growing up (pop ~200,000). Both received government funding, as tax payers were able to decide where their school tax money went. I can't tell you how they each stack up with regards to student performance, but I don't believe there was an exceptional difference.
Where I am now (Montreal area, Quebec) there are a large number of public schools (divided into English and French school boards) and a very small number of private schools. I can think of 2 private schools off the top of my head in my area (one elementary and one high school) and at least 5 or 6 elementary and 1 (very large) high school. (There are definitely more, but my kids are all elementary school age, so I haven't started to educate myself into the high school options, yet.)
I understand that this is anecdotal, but I don't think that our rankings can in any way be attributed to a "better" private experience. There are just too many public schools to make that possible.
I know of no-one who home schools their kids.
It may be how the school boards are run in Canada vs the US. But I consider that still "government". (Growing up, school board members were voted in during municipal election - my Dad was a perennial board member.)
Greg
I presume national ranking are overwhelmingly reflections of government schools, and I presume we are largely comparing apples to apples as it were.
I'm not sure how it works in Korea, for instance, these days, but I know in the US private schools and home schools grossly out perform public education for less money (sometimes far less), but the vast majority of kids are trapped in the failing traditional public school model.
I can't give you % for Canada, as it varies from province to province and even city to city.
The city I grew up in (Saskatoon) has two school boards, a "pubic" (secular) and "separate" (Catholic). There were more public high schools (about 6 or 7) than separate (2) when I was growing up (pop ~200,000). Both received government funding, as tax payers were able to decide where their school tax money went. I can't tell you how they each stack up with regards to student performance, but I don't believe there was an exceptional difference.
Where I am now (Montreal area, Quebec) there are a large number of public schools (divided into English and French school boards) and a very small number of private schools. I can think of 2 private schools off the top of my head in my area (one elementary and one high school) and at least 5 or 6 elementary and 1 (very large) high school. (There are definitely more, but my kids are all elementary school age, so I haven't started to educate myself into the high school options, yet.)
I understand that this is anecdotal, but I don't think that our rankings can in any way be attributed to a "better" private experience. There are just too many public schools to make that possible.
I know of no-one who home schools their kids.
It may be how the school boards are run in Canada vs the US. But I consider that still "government". (Growing up, school board members were voted in during municipal election - my Dad was a perennial board member.)
Greg
I did not know that the government in Canada ran Catholic schools. I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around that.
I did not know that the government in Canada ran Catholic schools. I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around that.
It depends on how you define "government". Schools are run by school boards. School boards are elected by the people. Ergo, school boards are one level of government. In my home town, there is a catholic school board and a public school board. You vote for the one you pay your taxes to.
Schools are not "run" by the municipal, provincial or federal governments. If that is your only definition of government, then we disagree on how to define what "government" is.
Regardless, it seems to be working here, at least according to the standings in the above link.
Greg
|
|
I did not know that the government in Catholic schools. I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around that.It depends on how you define "government". Schools are run by school boards. School boards are elected by the people. Ergo, school boards are one level of government. In my home town, there is a catholic school board and a public school board. You vote for the one you pay your taxes to.
Schools are not "run" by the municipal, provincial or federal governments. If that is your only definition of government, then we disagree on how to define what "government" is.
Regardless, it seems to be working here, at least according to the standings in the above link.
Greg
Ah. This was our original argument regarding education. Whether or not anything above a school board should determine what is taught in public schools. I am arguing that school boards should be the main determinants with some state guidelines with no interference from the federal level at all. Other people want some federal oversight, and thus the necessity of a federal Department of Education.
I did not know that the government in Catholic schools. I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around that.It depends on how you define "government". Schools are run by school boards. School boards are elected by the people. Ergo, school boards are one level of government. In my home town, there is a catholic school board and a public school board. You vote for the one you pay your taxes to.
Schools are not "run" by the municipal, provincial or federal governments. If that is your only definition of government, then we disagree on how to define what "government" is.
Regardless, it seems to be working here, at least according to the standings in the above link.
Greg
I guess I think of an elected school board as government. I assume that the voters in general in the school district get to vote on the membership of that board. School districts and their boards aren't necessarily tied to a municipality here, but they are certainly government.
I wasn't so much criticizing; it's just odd from a US perspective. Here many religious primary and secondary schools avoid any kind of government funding because of the attached strings, and many civil libertarians would be vigorously opposed to funding church primary and secondary schools.
Hmmm, can we move on to a different controversial subject? The legalization of drugs.
It is a pretty complex problem. We can say, let the states decide on their own. The problem then becomes what happens when people start transporting drugs across state lines?
Let's say California, Washington, Idaho, Utah, and New Mexico all legalize drug X. Now let's also assume that Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona all make drug X illegal. What if California growers want to ship their drugs to one of the states that has it legal, by land, which means it will have to travel through, but not necessarily stop in one of the states where it is illegal. Can those states, where it is illegal, stop and confiscate the drugs as well as arrest people transporting them from one legal state to another?
What if someone is on medical drug X and travels to a state where drug X is illegal? Can a state arrest them and confiscate their drugs even though it was for medical purposes in their home state?
Ah. This was our original argument regarding education. Whether or not anything above a school board should determine what is taught in public schools. I am arguing that school boards should be the main determinants with some state guidelines with no interference from the federal level at all. Other people want some federal oversight, and thus the necessity of a federal Department of Education.
Ok. I missed that point (been only casually reading this thread). The public school systems do get some of their marching orders from provincial governments. For example, the provincial government here in Quebec has determined how religion is taught in public schools (i.e. not at all - or at least no one particular religion - instead it is a comparitive study of religions and ethics. This is quite a big thing as French Quebec is almost uniformly Catholic). And they have implemented standardized testing for some grades.
But individual school boards still get to make a significant amount of decisions about how things are run here.
As near as I can tell there is no federal ministry of education in Canada but it could be tucked away in one of those portfolios.
Greg
Ah. This was our original argument regarding education. Whether or not anything above a school board should determine what is taught in public schools. I am arguing that school boards should be the main determinants with some state guidelines with no interference from the federal level at all. Other people want some federal oversight, and thus the necessity of a federal Department of Education.I did not know that the government in Catholic schools. I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around that.It depends on how you define "government". Schools are run by school boards. School boards are elected by the people. Ergo, school boards are one level of government. In my home town, there is a catholic school board and a public school board. You vote for the one you pay your taxes to.
Schools are not "run" by the municipal, provincial or federal governments. If that is your only definition of government, then we disagree on how to define what "government" is.
Regardless, it seems to be working here, at least according to the standings in the above link.
Greg
Federal oversight does not necessarily mean a department of education or anything it currently does. I think the federal courts should be an available recourse when state and local governments violate constitutional rights, but I think the Dept of Education should be abolished.
I wasn't so much criticizing; it's just odd from a US perspective. Here many religious primary and secondary schools avoid any kind of government funding because of the attached strings, and many civil libertarians would be vigorously opposed to funding church primary and secondary schools.
I wasn't taking it as a criticism. Sorry if it came across that way.
What you describe is how it runs here in Quebec. Parochial schools are private. And public are secular. So the difference in how the US and Canada fare in that ranking must be attributable to other aspects.
Greg
I wasn't so much criticizing; it's just odd from a US perspective. Here many religious primary and secondary schools avoid any kind of government funding because of the attached strings, and many civil libertarians would be vigorously opposed to funding church primary and secondary schools.I wasn't taking it as a criticism. Sorry if it came across that way.
What you describe is how it runs here in Quebec. Parochial schools are private. And public are secular. So the difference in how the US and Canada fare in that ranking must be attributable to other aspects.
Greg
In the Uk, we have fully religious schools, with religion based selection criteria , fully within the State school system. Ten again, we have a state religion and no seperation of church and state. Lucky gits with your freedom from religion clause ;)
|
|
I think in the cases mentioned above, each state would have to respect the rights of the other states to legislate drug-related behavior within their respective borders. It may be necessary to transport drugs by air, if they are made legal in several states separated by states where they are illegal. This would likely increase the cost of drug importation or drug (I hate to use the word trafficking since it has such a negative connotation these days) between the states. A cost that would necessarily be passed on to the consumer.
Now, as to the medical matter. It may be necessary for an individual who must receive medical drug X to remain within their state while he or she must necessarily receive treatment.
We can see this effect already in some states such as The Commonwealth of Kentucky, where certain counties have made liquor sales and transportation illegal. There are a few places where restrictive laws have required individuals in certain counties to produce and sell their own liquor, rather than import and sell it.
It is one of those necessities of property rights. If a person, entity, state, or corporation does not want drugs brought onto the property, they have the right to remove it and prevent it from being brought onto the property at all.
|
|
In the Uk, we have fully religious schools, with religion based selection criteria , fully within the State school system. Ten again, we have a state religion and no seperation of church and state. Lucky gits with your freedom from religion clause ;)I wasn't so much criticizing; it's just odd from a US perspective. Here many religious primary and secondary schools avoid any kind of government funding because of the attached strings, and many civil libertarians would be vigorously opposed to funding church primary and secondary schools.I wasn't taking it as a criticism. Sorry if it came across that way.
What you describe is how it runs here in Quebec. Parochial schools are private. And public are secular. So the difference in how the US and Canada fare in that ranking must be attributable to other aspects.
Greg
You mean freedom of religion. :)
|
I did not know that the government in Catholic schools. I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around that.It depends on how you define "government". Schools are run by school boards. School boards are elected by the people. Ergo, school boards are one level of government. In my home town, there is a catholic school board and a public school board. You vote for the one you pay your taxes to.
Schools are not "run" by the municipal, provincial or federal governments. If that is your only definition of government, then we disagree on how to define what "government" is.
Regardless, it seems to be working here, at least according to the standings in the above link.
Greg
I guess I think of an elected school board as government. I assume that the voters in general in the school district get to vote on the membership of that board. School districts and their boards aren't necessarily tied to a municipality here, but they are certainly government.
I wasn't so much criticizing; it's just odd from a US perspective. Here many religious primary and secondary schools avoid any kind of government funding because of the attached strings, and many civil libertarians would be vigorously opposed to funding church primary and secondary schools.
We had a slightly different experience with minorities and schools than you folks down south did.
At confederation, most provinces had a public non denominational school system (that while non denominational still had a heavy ladling of protestantism) and a parallel public catholic school system.
Instead of separate but equal being fought against. we had religious and linguistic minorities fighting for separate schools. Little pockets of french (or other) speaking people in Manitoba or Alberta, and little pockets of english speaking people in Quebec did not want to be assimilated, and fought for the right for their own schools.
S. 93 of our constitution affords them that protection, and gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over education. It was a compromise required to bring about confederation:
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:--
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:
(2) All the Powers, Privileges and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(50)
93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec. (added in 1997)
We also have a strange parallel system in the secular public schools - french immersion. I was taught entirely in french up until grade 2, and then half french half english until I graduated high school. This was in Alberta, Ontario and BC, not anywhere near Quebec. I don't think you have anything similar down south.
You mean freedom of religion. :)In the Uk, we have fully religious schools, with religion based selection criteria , fully within the State school system. Ten again, we have a state religion and no seperation of church and state. Lucky gits with your freedom from religion clause ;)I wasn't so much criticizing; it's just odd from a US perspective. Here many religious primary and secondary schools avoid any kind of government funding because of the attached strings, and many civil libertarians would be vigorously opposed to funding church primary and secondary schools.I wasn't taking it as a criticism. Sorry if it came across that way.
What you describe is how it runs here in Quebec. Parochial schools are private. And public are secular. So the difference in how the US and Canada fare in that ranking must be attributable to other aspects.
Greg
The practical outcome of rigorously upheld Freedom of Religion is freedom from religion. Freedom from religion doesn't mean having the right to say "hey dude, don't pray on your own time," it means having to say "Well blow me down, you and to teach my children religion in science class? Well you can't. Just like the Islamic guy can't have Prayer given slots in school time and the Hindu cat can't ban the sale of Beef."
Freedom from religion is your friend, it is what allows you to have something approaching true freedom of religion/freedom of atheism
We also have a strange parallel system in the secular public schools - french immersion. I was taught entirely in french up until grade 2, and then half french half english until I graduated high school. This was in Alberta, Ontario and BC, not anywhere near Quebec. I don't think you have anything similar down south.
As a prairie boy raised in Saskatchewan and now living in Quebec, I can honestly say that this is the best thing that has come out of a system with 2 official languages. My only regret is that they didn't have it when I was growing up. (I took french classes for 1 hour twice a week and nothing stuck.) When I moved to Quebec I was able to call up my niece back home and play her my phone messages and she was able to translate them for me :)
Greg
|
|
Some other interesting differences - the teachers down in Wisconsin were striking over pension cuts? The teachers in ontario have their own pension fund, which is the largest and most important investor in Canada.
Of course our teachers don't have much of a right to strike, they get routinely legislated back to work.
Also teachers, in certain circumstances, are allowed to hit their students. I don't think it ever happens though.
Some other interesting differences - the teachers down in Wisconsin were striking over pension cuts? The teachers in ontario have their own pension fund, which is the largest and most important investor in Canada.
Of course our teachers don't have much of a right to strike, they get routinely legislated back to work.
Also teachers, in certain circumstances, are allowed to hit their students. I don't think it ever happens though.
It's typically illegal here too, but the rule of law doesn't mean much to a lot of people.
I think maybe each state could have a role or a comittee that decides "By x grade, a child must know x to progress", then let the local school systems, public and private, choose their curriculums to meet those goals. At the end of a school year, see which district's methods worked the best, make those methods available to the rest of the state, and reward those schools that excel with tax money. Rinse repeat. Along with intra state atheltic rivalries, there could be academic ones as well.
Federal oversight does not necessarily mean a department of education or anything it currently does. I think the federal courts should be an available recourse when state and local governments violate constitutional rights, but I think the Dept of Education should be abolished.And I disagree. I think the Deptartment of Education needs to be overhauled and allowed to set national standards. Then it should be up to the school districts to get the students to that level. There should only be two national tests. One at the grade school level (say 6th) and one at the high school level (12th). Having set standards also would be easier on the teachers to look at a transfer students grades and figure out where exactly that student needs help.
The Department of Education should also be expected to standardize textbooks as well. Having maybe 12 acceptable textbooks for each course each grade level would help as well.
We disagree indeed.
|
|
I think maybe each state could have a role or a comittee that decides "By x grade, a child must know x to progress", then let the local school systems, public and private, choose their curriculums to meet those goals. At the end of a school year, see which district's methods worked the best, make those methods available to the rest of the state, and reward those schools that excel with tax money. Rinse repeat. Along with intra state atheltic rivalries, there could be academic ones as well.
A State Board of Education would be ideal. And of all the arguments that have been presented, I agree with yours the most. Although I still think that privately owned companies could assist with the educational process, either in determining standards, perhaps providing job information or skill knowledge at secondary education levels, or something along the sort. Ultimately, it will be the market that determines what skills a person entering the work force should have, so there should be some type of market-relative business involved.
I would say the key is competition and freedom to innovate. Two factors that are all but nonexistent in the current system.
I think the private company angle of my plan would be the ones who make the text books that make up the curriculi that succeed or fail.
You have competition from the ground up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if this should go here or in government folly
So basically Congress has two options, both of which are essentially the exact same. Kind of an appropriate metaphor for all American politics currently, no?
Not sure if this should go here or in government folly
So basically Congress has two options, both of which are essentially the exact same. Kind of an appropriate metaphor for all American politics currently, no?
Well said. The devil is in the details, but no one seems to pay attention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well said. The devil is in the details, but no one seems to pay attention.Not sure if this should go here or in government folly
So basically Congress has two options, both of which are essentially the exact same. Kind of an appropriate metaphor for all American politics currently, no?
Yup, it's all smoke and mirrors. Both sides essentially agree that America should be able to do pretty much whatever it wants. This an argument over the niceties and forms, not over the essence.
Props to Paul.
Barney Frank and Ron Paul will Introduce Legislation on Thursday to Fully Legalize Marijuana
[Crosses fingers]
Barney Frank story:
So, his opponents try to make a big deal about this, of course, and Barney, without any sense of shame, said "He was 16.5, he was legal age, eat it, b%&$~es!"
Which I thought was pretty badass.
The Force Is Strong With This One
Given Obi-Wan's fate, I have to wonder about the message this picture is trying to convey.
The Force Is Strong With This OneGiven Obi-Wan's fate, I have to wonder about the message this picture is trying to convey.
LOL! If you strike him down he will only become more powerful. People are fragile and fleeting. Ideas can live for millennia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, BT:
Uh, BT:
We are bombing their infrastructure for humanitarian reasons, but it's not really hostilities. We're not there to take sides, but we're only bombing one side. We're not there for regime change, but NATO keeps trying to drop bombs on the head of state. *Facepalm!*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The future of the American car :)Meanwhile, In the land of the Little People...
An idea I can get behind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are bombing their infrastructure for humanitarian reasons, but it's not really hostilities. We're not there to take sides, but we're only bombing one side. We're not there for regime change, but NATO keeps trying to drop bombs on the head of state. *Facepalm!*Uh, BT:
Imagine what they'll say about Yemen: We're not at war, we've just got killer robots flying around.
We are bombing their infrastructure for humanitarian reasons, but it's not really hostilities. We're not there to take sides, but we're only bombing one side. We're not there for regime change, but NATO keeps trying to drop bombs on the head of state. *Facepalm!*Uh, BT:
Imagine what they'll say about Yemen: We're not at war, we've just got killer robots flying around.
** spoiler omitted **
Lol.
First O'reilly, now CNN? Now I am getting worried.
As a Canadian I can't vote in the American election - either primary or general (and quite frankly both parties have aspects I disagree with even if I could vote in the American election), but I will offer a note of caution to those advocating any particular candidate: first said candidate has to win the parties primary nomination (still a while off, and Ron Paul (who is the relevant case for this thread) needs to do some work to bring up his profile with voters), then win the general election. And even assuming all of that is done, then the candidate has to face the enemy: Congress and the Senate. And don't forget, for a while (2001-2006) Republicans controlled the Presidency, House of Representatives and the US Senate, so even the same party might not agree on everything.
That is true. But one thing a president could do immediately without any input from the legislative branch is to begin repealing executive orders as well as paring back departments that fall under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. (DHS for instance).