American "Idle"

[tonefight]

While I didn't have time to read every post here, I would like to throw a few things in.

Lets start Teachers with a small salary and give them incentives when there students do well !!!!!!! Boy wouldn't that cause an uproar with the teachers union ?

I also think instead of just special education they should have a higher education also. Take the young bright kids and let them go to town in advanced classes but don't move too fast for the average kid to try to " advance " the education level.

People on welfare that don't try do bother me but isn't welfare only like 5% of taxes we pay? It probably costs more to pad all the greedy politicians pockets and retirement funds ....... that bothers me much more. Everything for me when I make the rules huh ?

[lonewolf]

I decided to take a look at SAT scores and see if there was any correlation to the creation of the Dept. of Education in 1979. What I found was kind of surprising.

In 1972, the verbal average was 530
In 1979, the verbal average was 505
In 1995, the verbal average was 504
In 2003, the verbal average was 507

In 1972, the math average was 509
In 1979, the math average was 493
In 1995, the math average was 506
In 2003, the math average was 519

The largest jump in math didn't start until 1996--the tech revolution.

I'd give the Department of Education about a D- on their performance.

Bill Gates has had more of an effect on U.S. education that D.O.E.

Once again, the feds strike out. The only way we can improve education in this country is to make it "cool to be smart" (copyright, LoneWolf, 2005, lol)

[bassist_25]

Because They need the money that would normally go for these things to buy Kevlar vests and metal detectors, Why?

I graduated in 2000. Cameras were placed in my high school the year after I graduated. They weren't placed there so much as for protection but rather to improve the capture of lavatory smokers. When I returned to visit my former business teacher (in 2001) I noticed that all of the PCs in the computer lab were still running Windows 3.1. I may be a bit biased since I worked in IT, but I think that having computer software that isn't from the stone-age is a little bit more important than catching someone puffing on a Marlboro.

Of course, my school is known for making bone-headed management decisions. They are currently in financial trouble for accepting a loan in which they must pay like 40% interest on. Teachers with tenure are currently (or at least the last time I checked) working part-time.

A better educational system would give those women who do find themselves in a bad place the full menu of options about what to with respect to a child they can't take care of and leave such akward decisions in the hands of themselves and their doctors and counselors, not some old white male politicians trying to make points with people who think "Leave it to Beaver" was a series documentary on the American family and not a make-believe sitcom.

Kind of off subject........

I recall an instance last spring in which I was sitting at a local pizza shop, conversing with a waitress I know. I was lamenting about how none of the local girls interested me. I'm only 22, so I'm not ready to settle down and get married, but I know what I'm looking for. She mentioned that the reason it seemed that was was probaly due to the fact that most of the girls who had a head on their shoulders probaly realized that they could leave and actually be something in life, rather than just hang-around here. What she said made a lot of sense.

That's not to say that cultured, intelligent, success-oriented women leave Central PA for "something better" and the rest are too stupid to move, but let's face it - there is an absence of opportunity here. I'm not sticking around here; if possible, I'd like to attend graduate school somewhere far away.

It is the meek who are to inherit the earth not the fiscally conservative. I dare one of you right wingers to show me the Bible verse where it specifically says "He who voted for Clinton shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven".

LOL

In all seriousness though, I agree. I never understood how the GOP is supposed to be for smaller government, but yet they try to legislate morality. Then again, I never understood how the left-wing can be against the death pentalty but at the same time be for abortion. Many people vote conservative for fiscal reasons and the religous right knows this, so they stick whatever agenda they want to the party. One of the scariest governmental groups in this country is the Constitution Party, a bunch of religous nuts who would love to turn America into the Christain version of Israeli.

I've always believed that government should remain as secular as possible. I'm not out to take away people's right to pray in public school or remove the ten commandments from a court room. I believe that people should be FREE TO EXPRESS THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEF. I just think that government legislation should be used with empirical reasoning. Thus, faith shouldn't be used as a basis for law (sorry, Pat Robertson). And also keep in mind when the next time someone tries to spin their view that America was founded on Christainity, just remind them that many of the Founding Fathers were actually Deists and Unitarians.

What do I think about God? I'm going to spend a lifetime trying to figure that one out. I had an interesting event occur to me as a child; if anyone wants to hear about it, feel free to PM me.

My only twist is that all the teachers, schools and money in the world won't help our educational drought as long as education is looked at as 'uncool' by a large portion of today's youth.

But hasn't it always been like that? School was always seen as being "uncool". What mattered was satitisfying your id and being a hedonist.

So many of today's role models are drop-outs, ex-cons, and/or beautiful morons. Today's society is a big ol' popularity contest, and nobody wins a popularity contest because of their ability to do a math problem or spell correctly.

We also have tons of kids going from high school to the major sports leagues or the pop-music biz... all the while sending the message that education isn't important as long as you have lots of money.

Love him or hate him, I remember Bill Maher made an interesting comment some time ago. He mentions that often times people will say that they are fans of Paris Hilton. After which, he'll ask why, because she doesn't have any observable talents. It's also kind of funny: Omarosa (the thieving and lying bitch from the reality show The Apprentice) has recieved more post-show press than the guy who actually won the thing.

Ask a teen today why they need to go to college, and I'll bet that most will say "So I get a good job that pays a lot". Sadly, greed fuels the education system just like the rest of our country. Granted, some of us truly want to help society, but most are just looking for a paycheck, and education for a paycheck doesn't help society on the scale that is needed.

Yeah, but can you really blame them? I often joke with people considering college by telling them to forget about school and just go down to the court house to have their last name changed; it would be a lot cheaper, less time consuming, and considering how nepotistic everything around here is, more attractive to employers than a BA or BS.

People with the right last name and without a post-secondary education can still find good jobs. The others better get ready to do their mandatory three interviews at Wal-Mart. Even so, a bachelor's isn't a job guarantee; there are a ton of over-qualified people working at the local burger hut. Hell, a gradute level degree isn't even a guarantee anymore.

I can't imagine trying to raise a nuclear family on $7 an hour. I don't think there's anything wrong with persuing higher education in the name of a higher salary. I won't lie; I'm in school to build a career and make more money than my current existence of being a musician, not because "I feel I would be a more complete person due to a liberal arts education". Granted, I wouldn't be persuing a career I didn't enjoy or have an interest in just because it garnered a large pay incentive. When considering all of the grad level work one must do become a psychologist, the pay isn't very high as compared to professions that require similar education (medical doctors, lawyers, MBA-level executives, etc.). If I were after money, I would probaly be persuing one of those careers.

Man, I sure typed a lot today.

Good night and Yoda Bless!!!

[byndrsn]

oh yeah, one last thing that I forgot to post earlier regarding welfare and all that:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I
think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in
poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

- Benjamin Franklin

[HurricaneBob]

Paul u really need a hobby or a whore or .............................

[FatVin]

Ron, that's exactly my point. That attitude starts with the fact that our schools are underfunded. Remember the generic crayons, and cheap pulp paper you get in Kindergarten? That's where the kids first get the message that schools aren't a big priority. Kids, even small ones, notice that the building is falling down around them. Think about an elementary school, its smells and sounds, the heating barely works, the molding is badly in need of paint, the bathrooms haven't been cleaned in decades, the whole place screams unimportant. You don't think kids notice that the english teacher is driving a POS? Kids notice.

If we treat schools like they are low on the list of prorities then so will the kids who attend.

The attitude that you are talking about starts there. Yes we idolize, rock stars and rappers and actors and athletes, because they make huge amounts of money and live a flashy life style. They live in palaces and work in Cathedrals or at least places that seem to be. Too bad we can't say the same thing about out teachers and our schools.

and Wolf,

we have had this argument before, and you're still wrong and I'll never be convinced that the framers envisioned an Uzi in every household.

[byndrsn]

Vinny,
I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to or if I am way off the subject, but I came across this article on the web and thought I would throw it out there for ya.
Urbs


No One Really Needs An Assault Weapon

Several years ago, a female jogger in New York's Central Park was assaulted by a pack of more than 20 hoodlums who raped and beat her nearly to death. If she had been carrying a high-capacity, semi-automatic pistol, she might well have successfully defended herself. And anything less would have been inadequate. Is this an assault weapon? According to gun control advocates, yes.

The term "assault rifle" originated in military nomenclature. It is defined as a fully-automatic rifle, carbine or submachine gun. "Fully automatic" means if you hold the trigger down, the gun will continue firing until the magazine is empty. Such firearms have been heavily restricted in America since 1934. Today, they are owned almost exclusively by specially licensed collectors, and are almost never used in crime. "Semi-automatic" means the gun will fire one round each time you pull the trigger.

In Switzerland, by law, every household must contain at least one fully automatic "assault rifle." Despite the ubiquity of these state-of-the-art military weapons in civilian hands, Switzerland's gun homicide rate is much lower than that of the United States.

Today, the anti-gun media and others have created the term "assault weapon." However, there is no clear meaning for this term. In fact, the term "assault weapon" is often used to refer to everything from bolt-action hunting rifles to semi-automatic handguns and even revolvers.

However, if we expand the definition of "assault weapons" to include any military-style semi-automatic, high-capacity firearm, we may ask "Who needs one? Many Los Angeles business owners did, particularly in the Korean community, during the riots of 1992. Hundreds of undefended stores were looted and burned - while shops that were defended, often with weapons that would be banned by proposed "assault weapon" laws, survived unscathed.

Hopefully, none of us will ever need our "assault weapons" - just as we hope we'll never need our fire extinguishers, insurance, emergency food and water, home alarm systems or bomb shelters (remember them?). But hope is not enough. We need to be prepared. And when it comes to protecting our homes and families, we want - and more importantly, we have the right to - the most powerful means of self defense available.

No matter how many laws are enacted and prisons built, criminals will always obtain guns to facilitate their violent misdeeds. Some of these outlaws will ingest drugs which render them impervious to pain, even a few gunshot wounds. They will often attack in gangs. These are yet more reasons why ordinary citizens need "assault weapons."

[bassist_25]

Paul u really need a hobby or a whore or .............................

....Oh no, not the gun debate again....

[lonewolf]

"we have had this argument before, and you're still wrong and I'll never be convinced that the framers envisioned an Uzi in every household."

Federal law states that every adult male citizen is a member of the mililtia. Any other notion is simply fantasy, wrongful opinion or wishful thinking.

I'M RIGHT
I'M RIGHT
I'M RIGHT
I'M RIGHT
I'M RIGHT
I'M RIGHT

So there!!!!!

[lonewolf]

""Fully automatic" means if you hold the trigger down, the gun will continue firing until the magazine is empty. Such firearms have been heavily restricted in America since 1934. "

I don't know if you saw my prior post regarding this, but this is the only gun control law where the 2nd amendment was directly tested in the supreme court, in 1939. The decision by the court to uphold the law was completely convoluted from the "enlightened" gun control proponents. The story goes like this:

A man was arrested for possesion and interstate transport of a sawed-off shotgun, in violation of the Firearms act of 1934. His attorney argued that the law was unconstitutional, citing the 2nd amendment. Pending the appeal, this guy got out of jail and he skipped town. Since he would not get paid, his attorney advised the Supreme Court that he would not attend the hearing and to make the decision based on the plaintiff's presentation. The court complied and here is a summary of their opinion.

The court interpreted the 2nd amendment as covering only those weapons that would be considered suitable as military weapons. The court decided (based on plaintiff's evidence alone) that a sawed-off shotgun is NOT a common or suitable military weapon and is therefore not protected under the 2nd amendment. Had this been a Thompson machine gun, a military weapon of the day, the law would have been thrown out right there in 1939 as unconstitutional.

There was never AND NEVER HAS BEEN any supreme court decision based on the 2nd amendment that limits the definition of "a well regulated militia" or puts upper limits on the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd amendment. Only this one that says weapons inferior to the military's are not protected.

Isn't that a kick in the ass? This one and only court decision ruled out sawed-offs, probably would rule out a .22, but would protect a fully automatic M-16, because it is a military weapon.

[FatVin]

Constitutions get amended...in fact, didn't the NRA amend their own constitution so that Chuck Heston could stay on another term as president? Amendments get repealed (or do you want Prohibition back?) In the 1780's when the Constitution was being written a fully trained professional soldier couldn't get off 3 aimed shots a minute now any boob with a Tek-9 can get off 300. It's time to get out our pencils and do a little re-write.

On second thought NO, I'm wrong....Guns for everybody, Let's put UZi's in our schools and AK-47's in the grocery stores and Hell, why not issue Rocket Propelled Grenades to 5th graders, better still, let's give every man, woman and child on this planet their own personal nuclear fuckin bomb

That should make you happy, at least for a little while.....

[songsmith]

At least people wouldn't be so quick to cut me off in traffic!---->JMS