GeorgiaDon

Seeing your thread title in Speaker's Corner, I thought "Scambo" was some new derogatory right-wing name for Obama. Good luck to your brother. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So what you are saying, is that when it comes to business your word is worth nothing? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not really enough info in that story to vote on. What is the US interest in the area? Is the US being compensated for the use of these expert advisers? 100 soldiers in four countries in a training or logistical role is quite tiny. Presumably those soldiers would be getting paid wherever they are, so the additional cost to the US is really small, possibly worth it in the long run if it buys access to resources or markets, or bottles up real "bad guys" and keeps them from harming other, more valuable allies and assets. Kind of like the "fight them over there, or fight them at home" doctrine. If the function is purely humanitarian, it should be coordinated through the UN, although that organization is so dysfunctional these days they couldn't organize squat. There's a lot of ground between being the world's policeman and being so isolationist we wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone no matter the circumstance even if asked directly. Neither is healthy in the long run. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

All true. So, how do we go about changing a culture that celebrates having money/stuff more than how you got it? Where going to prison is so commonplace it's virtually seen as a rite of passage to adulthood, a badge of honor not shame? Where the great majority of kids grow up with neighborhood gangsters as their only male role model? When Mike Tyson can go to jail for rape, come out a hero to the community, and find himself more marketable than ever due to his "enhanced" notoriety and bad boy image, we are well and truly fucked. I've read that in Japan (with a very low crime rate) going to prison automatically results in social ostracism. Not uncommonly, even immediate family including your children will refuse to acknowledge your existence. Think about it, after you've served your time and are released, you find yourself unemployable and totally alone, none of your former friends coming around, your kids won't return your calls. All alone until you eventually die. Here in the states we celebrate outlaws as folk heroes: Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid, Al Capone, all ruthless Killers who made lots of widows/widowers/orphans, but all admired in a way. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Happens all the time. Workers agree to a contract where they are paid some now and some of their pay is deferred into a pension. Workers fulfill their side of the contract and provide the labor/services. After the work is complete, the private company decides to unilaterally renegotiate the deal and renege on the pension. Usually the higher management then congratulates themselves on their "business acumen" and gives themselves big bonuses, paid for with the money stolen from their workers. Agreed this will be necessary. I wish they'd get on with it, not only because the cuts won't be quite as deep as if they wait another 20 years to do something, and partly because I'd like to know just what I have to plan for. My pension is actually my own money, invested, and I'm not counting on social security. But if I need to also put away enough money to pay any conceivable medical costs out of pocket, that probably isn't going to happen. One cancer can cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars; to cover a worse-case scenario you'd need a million or more set aside only for medical. Given that the "safe" forms of investment income pay somewhere between nothing and a couple of %, to live off the interest and not touch the principle you'd need several million put aside for living expenses. I think we're looking at a coming generation or more who are really going to get screwed over, but I don't see any obvious way out. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yep, my hurried response came out worse than I had intended. Of course Ron and his associates have every right to honor whoever they wish to, and obviously they couldn't honor everyone who was deserving even if they wanted to. I agree the term "hero" is sadly overworked, to the point where it is virtually meaningless. Every single fire fighter in the country is a hero? I don't agree that you have to wear a uniform to be a hero, but that's just my perspective. Others are entitled to theirs. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just curious if you considered those who put their lives and health on the line to fight diseases, working in the poorest and most dangerous areas of the world, to be "heroes" worthy of honor. Question answered, thanks. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just out of curiosity, would any of these gentlemen meet your criteria? They are responsible for saving tens of millions of lives so far, millions more every year, and they didn't have to use a gun to do it. Agreed that our cultural worship of "celebrities" is misplaced. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well John, can we at least agree that you are a "Gun-o-phobe-o-phobe"? One last thing and then I'm going to pull the plug on my involvement with this thread. When I moved to the US from Canada I brought the typical Canadian dislike of the US gun culture with me. What changed my attitude? You did. Not with calling names, or belittling, or anything like that. Just a rational statement: "If guns were to be outlawed, all it would do is take the last means of self-defense from law abiding citizens. Criminals won't surrender their guns, only the law abiding would." (Paraphrasing a bit I'm sure). I thought about that and saw that it is true. Just a simple, rational argument, but irrefutable. When you call people names and belittle and demonize them (as the article you linked does) all it does is makes people get their back up and dig in their heels. Persuasive arguments, calmly delivered, carry the day if you really want to persuade. Hope you have a safe weekend and blue skies, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Demonize definition: To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy. Note that you don't actually have to call someone a "demon" to "demonize" them. I've never thought much of the tactic, but I may be in the minority as it seems to be strategy #1 for a lot of people. Much like negative campaign ads I guess,everybody claims to hate them but they do seem to work. Go figure. Regarding people like McCarthy, remember you have the constitution on your side so in the end you will win and she will lose. Take a deep breath, hear her out, provide calm rational explanations of why her approach cannot work. Agree that violent crime is a problem. Who can disagree with that, although the actual danger is exaggerated by politicians for campaign advantage, and by the news media to sell advertising. Propose rational solutions. Stop opposing every effort (public education, after school activities and community centers) to provide alternatives to crime as an unconstitutional theft of taxpayer dollars. Be aware that taxpayers can pay now (good schools, supervised evening/weekend activities for at-risk kids) or pay later (prisons) after the damage is done. Be sympathetic to the loss she and many others have suffered, and recognize that it is basic human nature to fear the thing that hurt you. If necessary, resist her in court, where you know you will prevail. But labeling her as "dysfunctional unworldly" does demonize her, and does nothing to resolve the underlying reasons for the conflict. Think of her as a misguided victim, lashing out in the only way she knows, someone in need of patient correction. Those points are directed at the gun-o-phile crowd in general, specific points may or may not apply to you John. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sorry,I only teach molecular parasitology and medical entomology. Remedial reading is not my field, you'll have to seek help from someone who is trained in that. And probably very patient too. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thank you for the detailed reply. Unfortunately you completely missed the point of my post. Not surprising that you and certain others would do so, as you are evidently so blinded by your hatred of "gun-o-phobes" that you can't read all the way to the end of a post. Here it is again, with the important bits underlined this time so you (hopefully) can't miss it: "For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them, but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you." I have no problem with the gentleman in the link you gave. I understand the second amendment, and I am aware that the "genie is out of the bottle" regarding guns in American society. I do not have access to a "nutter detector" and so I have no solution to the problem of keeping guns and nutters apart, but I do not believe the answer is to keep guns out of everybody's hands. I accept the argument that when guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns. I do also believe that it is not unreasonable to wish for a less violent and dangerous society. I do understand why people would be seduced by the idea of simplistic solutions (take guns away) instead of the probably impossible task of changing human nature so everybody will be law abiding. I do not think it is helpful to caricaturize such people, or demonize them. I recall a long time ago you posted about an incident in which your family was threatened, even hurt I vaguely recall, by an armed thug. Your response was (again going on old memory) to vow to never again be defenseless in such a situation. I deduce that incident had a big influence on your feelings on the issue. This woman lost her husband, and her son was left permanently disabled, by a "nutter with a gun". Her response was to do everything she could to keep nutters (and pretty much everyone else) and guns apart. Similar experiences, different reactions. Neither person is a demon. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Be careful when you use that thing. It would suck to "terminate the call"... permanently. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Whatever floats your boat, dude. As if calling people names ever helped to resolve anything. You might want to brush up on your reading skills too, though you rarely let what people actually say get in the way of your pavlovian stimulus/response. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Way to go John. You claim that you never meant the term "gun-o-phobe" in a pejorative sense, then you post crap like that? I could make up shit about "gun-o-philes" as failed cop wannabees, or narcissists enjoying the secret thought that they could take out half their workplace before anyone could blink an eye, and it would be about as accurate. Your piece of crap troll bait (which I admit to biting on) leaves out a lot of people, such as the victims who have suffered great harm at the hands of an armed lunatic, and don't want anyone else to have to go through the same pain. Or the regular people who just want to be able to go pick up a pizza without feeling they have to look over their shoulder all the time lest some punk who feels empowered by his gun decide to relieve them of some cash, or maybe their life. Lots of decent folks don't want to feel threatened all the time, don't want the responsibility of carrying and the associated implied responsibility of making split second live-or-die decisions, and resent being effectively barred from going into certain areas or being confined to their homes after dark. For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them, but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The constitution does not confer the right to do anything per se. It does define the right of the federal government to restrict some things. Other than that, you are assumed to have the right to do as you wish. For example, the constitution does not enumerate the right to drive a car, skydive, etc. How could it? There are a bazillion things people do, and many of them didn't exist when the constitution was written, how could the constitution be expected to list all the things that are allowed? Don The constitution enumerates the specific powers of the fed gov. All else is to be left to the states Agreed. So how do you get from that to the notion that we as "the people" must have specific "permission", explicitly written into the Constitution, to drive a car, skydive, or do drugs? Don That was not from me In post # 127, you wrote "Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition? Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from" It was from you. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The constitution does not confer the right to do anything per se. It does define the right of the federal government to restrict some things. Other than that, you are assumed to have the right to do as you wish. For example, the constitution does not enumerate the right to drive a car, skydive, etc. How could it? There are a bazillion things people do, and many of them didn't exist when the constitution was written, how could the constitution be expected to list all the things that are allowed? Don The constitution enumerates the specific powers of the fed gov. All else is to be left to the states Agreed. So how do you get from that to the notion that we as "the people" must have specific "permission", explicitly written into the Constitution, to drive a car, skydive, or do drugs? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The constitution does not confer the right to do anything per se. It does define the right of the federal government to restrict some things. Other than that, you are assumed to have the right to do as you wish. For example, the constitution does not enumerate the right to drive a car, skydive, etc. How could it? There are a bazillion things people do, and many of them didn't exist when the constitution was written, how could the constitution be expected to list all the things that are allowed? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Here at the University of Georgia 65% of the undergrad student population is female. That includes majors like chemistry and biology that are not traditional female-dominated areas, such as education. Your problem if you didn't check such things out before signing up wherever you went to school/chose a profession. And why do you hate guys from South East Arizona so much? Here's the deal: getting into and staying in a decent university should be a meritocracy. Each school should "cherry pick" the applicants who bring the most to the school. Generally that means the students who took academics seriously in high school, and generally these days that means girls. Personally, and with some degree of seriousness, I blame sports. When I do outreach presentations at elementary and high schools, and ask students what they are thinking about for a career, virtually all the boys say "NBA" or "NFL", or very rarely "golf". I never hear "doctor" or "CEO" from the boys, but I do hear it from the girls. All the boys, even the skinny runty ones, are dazzled by the big paychecks earned by a very small number of sports superstars, and so are their parents it seems. Spending time shooting hoops is seen as better career training than doing homework. Academically, for many boys the bar is set at the level of getting a sports scholarship, which means spelling your name correctly (with perhaps just a little bit of coaching). Aside from the few who do manage to get sports scholarships, the rest of the boys are just outcompeted by the girls when it comes to earning admission to university. Sports as "fun" and "character building" are fine, but professional sports as the only career plan for >90% of young males is incredibly destructive. I'm pretty sure the same is true with the asian dominance at Berkeley too. Asian culture traditionally values excellence in academics, much more than "American" culture does. Sometimes schools set "diversity" targets because they see that students are missing out on aspects of the non-classroom-based aspects of the education they are supposed to receive at university. If all they see are people who look and act just like themselves, they won't be as well prepared to deal with the real world post-university as the student who experiences something closer to real-world diversity. Of course, the real world is also full of stupid, uneducated, and otherwise vacuous people too, but there are limits to what a diversity program can be expected to accomplish. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It may be based on natural law, but I think things would be less complicated if they would just base it on scripture. The catholic church is notorious for usurping biblical authority and interjaculating it's own self serving rule. It's highly unlikely that they can use biblical reference to condemn the use of contraception...it's just not there. There are references however that could be used to support the idea of sexual pleasure without the intent of reproduction: Proverbs 5:18-19 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. Song of Solomon 1:2,4,13 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine....Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers... A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 1 Corinthians 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For once, I agree with you. Hallelujah! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's surprising to me that a conservative capitalist would have any problem with this. I thought everything should be bought, and nothing (not even life-saving medical treatment) should be available as an "entitlement"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I believe premarital childbirth is covered under any policy that covers postmarital childbirth now. The uproar over a policy that asked one's marital status for certain procedures would be interesting. Wendy P. I'd have to check on that. When my teenaged daughter got pregnant 11 years ago my employer-sponsored health insurance specifically stated that pregnancy related expenses would only be covered for the policy holder's legally married spouse. Although my daughter was covered for other things via my family coverage, anything having to do with prenatal care, the delivery, or my granddaughter's pediatric care we paid out of pocket. It seemed quite discriminatory to me at the time, as there was no comparable situation in which boys would be denied coverage (for example, treatment for STDs would be fully covered). Welcome to the Bible belt! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In fairness to the catholic church, I think they would. To my understanding (as a former Catholic) the argument is based on "natural law", and goes like this: 1. God created humans. 2. In the form in which humans were created, sex is directly related to, and necessary for, reproduction. Since we were created by God, this connection must represent God's design and intent. 3. Separating sex from reproduction is a violation of God's intent. 4. Violating God's intent is a sin. I'm sure someone will correct me if I have that wrong. Anyway there doesn't seem to be any way to construe that so it would apply differently if boys could get pregnant. Personally I have never understood why the same logic doesn't apply to other "natural" phenomena, such as disease. If we were "created" in a form that makes us susceptible to heart disease, cancer, infectious diseases, etc why is it OK to use antibiotics/surgery/chemotherapy etc to work against God's plan? As I understand the "logic" the Church uses, we were "created" with the intellect to understand and devise treatments for diseases, so medical treatments don't really violate God's intent. Diseases are just challenges for us to figure out. Jesus cured diseases, so it wouldn't make any sense to say it would be wrong for us to do so as well. But then, we have the intellect to devise methods to avoid pregnancy. So why is it a sin to apply that intellect to birth control, but not cancer? Just one of many things about Catholic theology I don't get. I'm not saying the Catholic Church should be against medical treatment. I'm just saying they apply one stand to birth control and another to other aspects of "natural law", so there is no logical consistency. Also the position of the church ignores the other roles of sex in long-term relationships, especially in forming emotional bonds that strengthen the relationship. I wouldn't expect the church to put much weight behind the "sex is fun" argument, but surely they could see that strong emotional bonds are important to creating a stable family environment in which to bring children, when (and if) the couple chooses to do so. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And from your other post: It's true that universities have to look for other sources of revenue, as state funding has decreased dramatically in the past couple of decades, and especially over the past decade. In some states (I have heard Wisconsin, for example, though I don't have a link) state funding now accounts for less than 10% of the operating costs of the so-called "public" universities. Foreign students willing to pay full tuition take some of the pressure off, resulting in tuition increases to in-state students that are lower than they otherwise would be (though the increases are still painful). There are other benefits too. Foreign students who study here experience the American culture, and often end up exporting those values to their home country when they return. Similarly, American students benefit by their exposure to people who come from a completely different background. Students who only come into contact with other Americans during their time in school miss a great opportunity to expand their education. Also, many of the best and brightest of the foreign students end up immigrating and staying permanently in the US, so the US gets to harvest many of the smartest and hardest working people in the world and put them to work here. [Disclaimer: although I wouldn't count myself amongst the "best and brightest", compared to some others I know who have gone the same route, this is how I came to be a US citizen). If you think it is a good idea to bar admitting foreign students, you might want to change the name of your institution to a "Statesiversity" or "Xenophobersity", because it certainly won't have anything universal about it. Regarding the Dickenson College situation, I don't know if they are a degree mill or not. I do know that in the classes I teach I do not know who is a foreign student, who is out-of-state, and who is in-state. I do know that everybody in my courses must complete the same assignments and pass the same exams. No-one is given a pass who doesn't complete all the work. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

True enough. But by that standard, there is zero objective fact to "beautiful", "hot" (or "hotter"),"ugly", "tasty", "fun", "exciting", or any other adjective, as what is beautiful to one person may be ugly to another (think of modern art for example), and what is fun and exciting to some may be terrifying to others (skydiving for example). Language would be sterile indeed if we could never use adjectives. We do use such adjectives because most of us understand that they are a statement of the speakers opinion, not of a quantifiable quality. If some politician says "fair" it's no mystery to me that they mean "fair according to their political world view", which may or may not be in agreement with what I think is "fair". Perhaps it would be better to say "more equitable", as in more balanced in terms of costs and benefits, but there will always be a lot of fuzziness to such terms. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)