[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-25, 18:30, said:

I don't know what NBC was doing but "trying to better present the facts" is not an option for what they were doing. It was either a purposeful edit to make Zimmerman seem racist or simple stupidity.

That does not relieve James O'Keefe of his responsibilities for creating at best misleading tapes, again and again and again.

Really it's as old as the hills. Pete gets caught doing X, he talks about Joe doing Y. So Pete and Joe can share a cell. Cain probably blabbed about Abel. And Eve blamed it all on a snake, Adam blamed it on Eve.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-October-25, 19:42, said:

Really it's as old as the hills. Pete gets caught doing X, he talks about Joe doing Y. So Pete and Joe can share a cell. Cain probably blabbed about Abel. And Eve blamed it all on a snake, Adam blamed it on Eve.

I agree, Ken, yet I am flabbergasted and get frustrated when an argument uses oranges to compare with apples. I've encountered this same argument with the religious that one "belief" (God did it) compared equally to another "belief" (the science of evolution, etc.), and now I'm faced with the same argument that NBC's faulty editing is equivalent to James O'Keefe's persistent attempts to provide misleading video for strictly political purposes.

I know that a single person is capable of extreme bias and dishonesty of the type shown by James O'Keefe. I am not prepared to accept that an entire television network is engaged in a conspiracy to do the same thing.

[Zelandakh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

However, as an American, I am well informed because I know that New Mexico is not a foreign entity. That puts me ahead of about 46% of the American college age kids, the last time I checked. (I have never lived near New Mexico so I don't have an unfair advantage.)

I realise that Americans do not have the best reputation for geography but do you have any evidence at all to back your claim other than hearsay and populist (non-scientific) surveys designed to grab attention. Hint: if you heard this on a late night right wing radio station it probably is not based on real research.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

I'm somewhat well informed because I can see around me that those in their 20's can't add 9 and 6 without a calculator or don't know what half of $2 is and realize that something is wrong with how we are educating our children. The current push for more testing and less teaching is going to exacerbate the problem.

Is it not the case that such issues are much stronger in red-state schools, particularly those that have introduced a push for teaching creationism in science classes? Again, I do not know the statistics as to whether the innumeracy rate has really increased or not. There is very often an appearance of sliding values in education that has little or no bearing on reality once one actually looks more closely into the statistics. What is clear is that there are "haves" and "have nots" in the American school system, so that it is extremely difficult for some schools to hire and retain the best teachers. That would certainly be a good issue for politicians to address but would of course most likely lead to complaints from the "have" schools and their communities that their standards are being eroded.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

That likely puts me in front of the 80% or so of conservatives that think that almost all liberals are uninformed libtards and the liberals that think that conservatives are a bunch of racist hicks who think all blacks should be sent back to Africa.

93.8% of statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spur of the moment. Your 80% figure appears to be within that 91.4%. You very much show your right-wing bias with commentary like this. People are not so black and white as you make out and the vast majority are to be found in the middle and not at the extremes.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

I am somewhat well informed because I share neither the left wing view that Islamic terrorism isn't a problem, nor the alt right wing view that we should send all Muslims back to the Middle East and then bomb the entire area.

Outside of right-wing propaganda I doubt you will find many who say that Islamic terrorism is not a problem at all. The question is more about which values are worth sacrificing to address it and whether rhetoric such as your "right wing view", which I have to admit I have only actually heard from DT amongst senior Republicans, is more of a negative than a positive in alleviating the issue.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

As a conservative, I am in theory (probably in your opinion) a hateful bigoted Muslim hater.

You may well be but I would not personally label you as such just from being right-winged. You may also be racist, sexist or a serial killer for all I know.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

I believe that all Americans should have the opportunity to feel good about themselves, and be productive members of society. This is more likely to happen under a system where small businesses can flourish and not be burdened with massive regulations - even knowing all the different regulations from all the levels of government can be so challenging for a new business that the prospective entrepreneur gives up before he starts, meaning there are less jobs for people and more people on the dole, which makes them feel less good about themselves and ticks off the people who support them. Now, this is a conservative position.

In many countries this would be a Liberal position, the promotion of individual rights and small businesses. I am not sure if it says something about you, the right wing media or America in general that the term over there gets warped to such a degree.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

A lot of the problem of health care is the rising costs.

The way to reduce costs in a national health service is generally to move over to a single payer model. It is nice of you to agree that the idea behind Obamacare is a good one and that it should probably have gone much further than it did.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

College costs are outrageous. One of the reasons is that the government loans everybody and their brother money for college and there is too much demand. Consider that the average kid might be better off forgoing college for four years of experience, and if he had any talent at all, he will probably be the boss of the new graduates coming out of college.

Have you seen any statistics about the way the job market is going? Increasingly a degree is required for even fairly basic positions. The chances of someone coming out of school and rising to a position managing graduates within 4 years is very small. It is extremely bad advice for the vast majority of school-leavers that they should forego going to university (or an equivalent post-school training) if they have the opportunity to do so.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

I think the federal government's job is mainly defense, there is no reason for many of the agencies. For example, education should be handled at the state, if not local, level. If Kansas wants to teach creationism while California wants to teach 26 gender identities, I see no reason not to let them, and each set of parents can try to relocate to a state whose ideas align with theirs (easier now that many jobs can be done remotely.) There is no reason for a federal Department of Education.

You are joking, right? You really cannot see a reason for a country insisting that all of its children are given a reasonable and equal education? How about if Louisiana decided that schools for "above average" students should get taught maths and science and schools for "below average" students should teach how to be a manual labourer. Oh yes, and just by chance all of the white children are in the first group. No problem at all, right? I think you should seriously think about the possibilities that would result from your position. While security is clearly the number one priority for a government, education is not far behind and absolutely essential for any "advanced" economy.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

The above content represents my own thoughts and I hope you can see that I am not parroting a random conservative organization. If you still believe I am an uninformed dittohead, then I will never change your mind. However, I hope I have proven you wrong about that allegation.

I think you get far too many of your thoughts and ideas from right-wing sources and this severely colours your world viw, far more than you yourself realise. That you think having slightly modified positions from the most extreme right wing viewpoints on a few issues makes you something different is worrying. That you seem to think you understand the world so much better than other educated people who have also considered these topics is a little sad. That you also appear to believe in conspiracy theories with no evidence behind them is worrying and, sadly, affects my opinion of you more generally. That probably says something about me though...

[billw55]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-25, 12:42, said:

If Kansas wants to teach creationism I see no reason not to let them.

I enjoyed your long post and repped it, but I do want to check back on your consistency.

You see no reason not to let a state teach creationism - essentially, ignoring the first amendment. I presume then that you also see no problem with a state banning all firearms - ignoring the second amendment? Or perhaps no problem with a state conducting random searches of private property - ignoring the fourth amendment? How about ignoring the 19th? Which of them (other than the tenth) cannot be ignored, and why?

You seem to think about issues and articulate your views well, so I am genuinely interested in your response.



edit: mikeh repped Zel above! I would welcome you back posting mikeh, I always considered your contributions valuable, even when I disagreed.

[Winstonm]

The only reply I have to Kaitlyn S. is that anyone who believes states should be in control of education should examine Alabama during the time George Wallace was governor.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-26, 08:20, said:

The only reply I have to Kaitlyn S. is that anyone who believes states should be in control of education should examine Alabama during the time George Wallace was governor.

To play Devil's Advocate, couldn't you say that about many state laws and policies? Are you suggesting that we abolish states' rights, because sometimes states get it wrong? If not, where do you draw the line?

It's not like we can trust the federal government to always get it right, either. There's a sweeping movement to legalize marijuana at the state level, but the feds don't seem to be budging.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-26, 08:20, said:

The only reply I have to Kaitlyn S. is that anyone who believes states should be in control of education should examine Alabama during the time George Wallace was governor.

In high school, c.1954, we had current events discussion about the proper role of the federal government in education. That would be, now let me try this in my head, 62 years ago.

Nov 8 I vote. Pres is easy, as is Senator and Representative. But the school board has two vacancies. This might require some thought, and I have not even started on it. A big issue: The governor has issued an Executive Order that public schools, elementary and high, cannot start before (or on) Labor Day. Should we fight this? How? Apparentlly he has widespread support. It's ok if Hillary has not yet weighed in on this.

Now you might think that this is because we have a Republican governor. But way back, when the University began starting classes in late August, the Democratic governor announced that no student would be punished for not attending classes prior to Labor Day because nothing much happens during the first week or two anyway.

What can I say? This is the world as it is.

[barmar]

Regarding college education, Ken Berg has also made the point that not everyone needs to go to college.

OK, it's certainly possible to be successful without a college education. But I think it should be the person's choice, not something they're stuck with due to circumstances. If you want to get into a profession where college is a practical necessity, that opportunity should be open to you.

And we should realize that the reality of modern life is that many, if not most, well-paying professions do require higher education. And numerous studies about income inequality have shown how difficult it is these days to move up in society -- surely lack of access to higher education is a big part of that.

I suppose someone will point out that people used to be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Many baby-boomers were the first in their families to go to college, often being the children of poor immigrant parents who scrimped and saved so they could send them, and they made up the rising middle class. But I don't think it's fair to compare then with now. College costs have risen far faster than inflation. And we've also lost many of the decent blue collar jobs that employed these parents. So the gap between what poor people can save and what college costs has expanded too much for them to handle it. We need something that bridges this gap if people are to have any significant chance of getting themselves out of the poverty well -- just "buckling down and trying harder" is not going to work for most people.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-October-26, 09:45, said:

Regarding college education, Ken Berg has also made the point that not everyone needs to go to college.

OK, it's certainly possible to be successful without a college education. But I think it should be the person's choice, not something they're stuck with due to circumstances. If you want to get into a profession where college is a practical necessity, that opportunity should be open to you.

On this we most definitely agree.

I will perhaps say more later.

[Kaitlyn S]

billw55, on 2016-October-26, 08:06, said:

You see no reason not to let a state teach creationism - essentially, ignoring the first amendment.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.




Are you implying that letting a state teach creationism is the same as creating a law respecting an establishment of religion? I don't see it as the same thing; there is no law per se, but their Board of Education chooses to teach creationism and no state lawmakers are forbidding it.

I don't it abridging the freedom of speech or press or the right to assemble or petition the government.

If it can be shown that this action is ignoring the First Amendment, then I would strongly oppose it; and I would hope the Supreme Court would also since it is their job to uphold the constitution.

I may have missed it, but I am not aware of any conservative organizations trying to flaunt the First Amendment. However, college campuses have done so by banning conservative speakers such as Jason Riley from speaking on campus because a few liberal students protested (his message does not align with that of BLM.) If any liberal speakers were asked not to come because conservative students protested, I'd be interested in knowing about it but to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't happened.

The whole "safe space" and "trigger words" issue seem to fly in the face of the First Amendment. While I would expect people to use common courtesy and not say anything that should offend a person (I mean "should" as in "would be expected to offend someone that isn't going to complain for the sake of complaining), I think it's a joke when "I think America is the greatest nation on earth" or "I think the person best qualified for the job should get it" is considered offensive language and thus banned in certain places.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-26, 07:30, said:

You are joking, right? You really cannot see a reason for a country insisting that all of its children are given a reasonable and equal education? How about if Louisiana decided that schools for "above average" students should get taught maths and science and schools for "below average" students should teach how to be a manual labourer. Oh yes, and just by chance all of the white children are in the first group. No problem at all, right? I think you should seriously think about the possibilities that would result from your position. While security is clearly the number one priority for a government, education is not far behind and absolutely essential for any "advanced" economy.

I wonder. As I understand, the education system in Germany does work something like this, minus the racial component of course. Students are routed into three tiers of secondary school with different target outcomes. They do seem to have a thriving and advanced economy.

I may be misunderstanding the system there, perhaps someone with more direct knowledge can expand on this.

[billw55]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-26, 09:58, said:

Are you implying that letting a state teach creationism is the same as creating a law respecting an establishment of religion?

Emphatically yes. And USSC decisions agree with me.

[mikeh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-26, 09:58, said:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.




Are you implying that letting a state teach creationism is the same as creating a law respecting an establishment of religion? I don't see it as the same thing; there is no law per se, but their Board of Education chooses to teach creationism and no state lawmakers are forbidding it.

I don't it abridging the freedom of speech or press or the right to assemble or petition the government.

If it can be shown that this action is ignoring the First Amendment, then I would strongly oppose it; and I would hope the Supreme Court would also since it is their job to uphold the constitution.

I may have missed it, but I am not aware of any conservative organizations trying to flaunt the First Amendment. However, college campuses have done so by banning conservative speakers such as Jason Riley from speaking on campus because a few liberal students protested (his message does not align with that of BLM.) If any liberal speakers were asked not to come because conservative students protested, I'd be interested in knowing about it but to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't happened.

The whole "safe space" and "trigger words" issue seem to fly in the face of the First Amendment. While I would expect people to use common courtesy and not say anything that should offend a person (I mean "should" as in "would be expected to offend someone that isn't going to complain for the sake of complaining), I think it's a joke when "I think America is the greatest nation on earth" or "I think the person best qualified for the job should get it" is considered offensive language and thus banned in certain places.

Okay, I can't resist.

Firstly, for someone who prides herself in her command of language, the word you wanted to use was 'flout', not 'flaunt'.

Secondly, teaching creationism is teaching a particular variant of a particular kind of religion. It is not freedom of speech. It is the teaching of a creation myth that underlies the Book of Genesis. The fact that the mythology in that text has its origins in still more ancient superstitions is something most Xians either don't know or refuse to admit, since, after all, if their sacred works are really rehashed amalgams of earlier pagan myths, that suggests that maybe the scriptures are not the actual inerrant word of their particular god.

Thirdly, teaching, as 'science' a scientifically illiterate superstition, calculated to cripple the innate ability to think critically about the way the world really is, constitutes, in my book, child abuse. We wouldn't ever endorse a form of education that force-fed children massive quantities of sugars and fats while teaching that exercise is bad (admittedly, many children do seem to be raised this way, but this is not systemically enforced), because we recognize the life-long harm that such would cause. There is no fundamental difference between that sort of scheme and teaching creationism. Both risk crippling the adult the child will become.

Fourthly, your reference to trigger warnings represents a common right-wing meme, which in turn completely distorts the purpose of a trigger warning. The point of a trigger warning is not to muzzle or limit speech...it is precisely the opposite. It is to announce to the audience that the topic about to be discussed may cause controversy....and that the topic is going to be discussed despite that possibility. It is to encourage people to listen to things that they might otherwise avoid, by letting them know that the speaker understands their concerns but thinks that it is important to talk about the subject. At the same time, the trigger warning allows those who might be startled, offended, or hurt to know that the speaker is not raising the topic to cause those reactions.

As for banning speakers, I tend to agree that Universities ought to be careful about who they ban and why. But while free speech is laudable, the concept can be taken way too far....too many conservatives confuse the right to free speech with the right to demand that others listen to them, and that any speech criticzing them should be banned (the irony would be amusing if it weren't so sad).

Btw, as an avid follower of American politics and current events, I have NEVER seen any prominent American, other than Donald Trump, ever publicly announce that America is anything other than 'great'.

I have seen numerous statistics that suggest that its greatness is not evenly distributed. Infant mortality, life expectancy, number of people living in poverty, quality of non-college public education, measures of happiness, levels of crime, levels of incarceration.....the US ranks low on all of these measures compared to most post-industrial nations.

But no prominent politician ever says any of this, and they can't...because every American 'knows' that their country is the 'greatest'.

As for 'the best person for the job should get it', I would tend to agree. However, role models are important. While there are young people so self-possessed and determined that they will overcome stereotypical notions of what they should aspire to become, most of us are (were, in my case)not like that. If we see that, for example, all doctors are male, then few girls will aspire to medical school. Few women will aspire to be President.

Affirmative action seeks to reduce the presence of stereotypes...to change expectations by changing the appearance of certain fields of activity, whether that be college or profession. There are some fascinating studies that show, for example, that young blacks when tested thinking that their competition is limited to other blacks score better than when they think that the competition includes whites. Society has engrained in these students an expectation of inferiority. Affirmative action is a means to ameliorate that sort of issue.

Conservatives tend to prefer their 'common sense' view of the world to reality, which is why it has been said that reality has a liberal bias. Your views seem to reflect that reality.

[Kaitlyn S]

mikeh, on 2016-October-26, 11:04, said:

Firstly, for someone who prides herself in her command of language

Where did you get that idea? Nothing could be further from the truth.

[diana_eva]

Oh Kaitlyn, get out while you still can. Not referring to this thread or your posts in particular. The WC Forum is not like any other. Sometimes I feel people post with their evil twin here.

[Kaitlyn S]

mikeh, on 2016-October-26, 11:04, said:

But no prominent politician ever says any of this, and they can't...because every American 'knows' that their country is the 'greatest'.

I think that Michelle thought otherwise until Barack was elected.

[Kaitlyn S]

dang duplicate post

[Kaitlyn S]

diana_eva, on 2016-October-26, 11:32, said:

Oh Kaitlyn, get out while you still can. Not referring to this thread or your posts in particular. The WC Forum is not like any other. Sometimes I feel people post with their evil twin here.

It's no worse than the Religion, Sex, and Politics forum on boardgamegeek.com (where I am also about as welcome as a skunk at a dinner party.)

I'm just sad that my own evil twin is having about a 19% game here I didn't think a forum could have a higher percentage of liberal posters than BGG's RSP but have found it here. Your advice is well taken. However, TBH, I don't find any of the posters here trying to be evil (they are worse on RSP) and some of them are trying to educate me.

[kenberg]

mikeh, on 2016-October-26, 11:04, said:

Okay, I can't resist.

This can happen. Becky gave up Diet Coke a couple of months ago but she had one today. I hope she goes back to resisting. You, I hope you stick around.

I agree that freedom of speech is not always totally obvious. I see by today's Washington Post that the Univ of MD has cancelled a speech due to, they say, high security costs.

https://www.washingt...-it-censorship/

As far as I know, discussion of his views is not prohibited. But then, he should be able to speak. But then, free to speak does not necessarily equate to the University being obligated to provide him with a platform. Still, students should be able to listen to whom they wish to listen.

It's a slippery slope. Just about everyone agrees that people should be allowed to freely present their views. But what to do about the person whose views consist of name calling. Must the University host his talk?

When I was young I went to a Little Richard concert and dance at a firehouse. But I had to go to it, the University did not bring him to the campus. Well, maybe I was still in high school but you get the idea. Freedom of music did not extend to Little Richard. Maybe it should have, but it didn't. He saw Mary coming and he ducked back in the alley. Sounds good to me.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2016-October-26, 11:04, said:

As for banning speakers, I tend to agree that Universities ought to be careful about who they ban and why. But while free speech is laudable, the concept can be taken way too far....too many conservatives confuse the right to free speech with the right to demand that others listen to them, and that any speech criticzing them should be banned (the irony would be amusing if it weren't so sad).

This has been a long and often depressing forum thread, to say the least. But mikeh posting here is the best news I have seen in it. As usual mikeh, your rhetoric takes the case further than I would, but is still good reading.

About the quoted bit, and political speakers at Universities. There have been various cases of conservative speakers being aggressively protested and/or shouted down at supposedly liberal colleges. But when Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University, the students received him with all respect due to his position, and calmly listened to his speech in its entirety, despite his position far away on the political spectrum. I doubt he persuaded many, maybe none, but the difference in decorum was pronounced.