JOHN, that's not even a big deal compared to the bill itself. Media is Media, they defend the status quo.
This BILL... is The End of the Republic. But hopefully the Bill will either Absolutely tyrannize the sheople or wake up the patriots... this is tyranny. Vague BIllS ARE TYRANNY. period. Our constitution is Absolute and yet fits in your pocket.
My point is this...
If you don't defend the "terrorist" for the sake of JUSTICE, well then there's no point. "justice for all" means nothing anymore.
sorry for rambling.
this National Defense Authorization Act has me livid.
@BigJohn It doesn't state U.S. Citizens are included, it specifically states U.S. Citizens are NOT included...
(e) AUTHORITIES.Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
captured or arrested in the United States.
This essentially re-affirms the law as it currently exists: According to the Hamdi decision, if you're an American citizen/legal resident or captured in the U.S. you are entitled to due process. According to Latif, if you are not an American or captured in the U.S., you are completely screwed. It is still incredibly bad for congress to codify this concept into law in my opinion but that's another topic...
The reason why there's so much misinformation and confusion about this is because a lot has happened in a very short amount of time, and bloggers citing old articles that reference the original text are continued to be spread around. Meanwhile the text is still confusing, with people like Amash still insisting that it does apply to U.S. citizens. This isn't intended to be a time line but this is basically what happened, mostly in order of events:
1) Graham/McCain/Levin introduce an amendment to the bill, regarding detainment of people in the war on terror, it is written intentionally vague so that it could be applied to American citizens. (I say intentionally based on McCains comments.) This is obviously very bad.
2) Obama administration threatens to veto the bill stating that the detainee provisions (among other things) add too much legal ambiguity and confusion that would make it difficult to operate. Politico and other sites are meanwhile writing articles about the damages of this particular section of the bill.
3) The amendment is attempted to be passed by voice vote but Rand Paul blocks it, it is defeated in a roll call vote. Debate ensues about how to fix it or whether or not it should be fixed or thrown out.
4) Senator Feinstein proposes adding the word "abroad" after "is captured" in order to specify that it doesn't apply to people in the U.S. This amendment is rejected. Politico who has been writing articles about this now uses the defeat of Feinstein's amendment as proof that the senate wants to strip you of your constitutional rights. (I'm not 100% sure why her amendment failed but probably because it just adds more room for interpretation and the bill still doesn't include legal u.s. residents at this point, only citizens. If anyone wants to try to figure it out, a full transcript of the debate is available here)
5) Feinstein introduces another amendment which aims to clear up the ambiguity of the bill by explicitly stating it does not change current law, and does not apply to american citizens, legal residents, or people inside the United States. Amendment passes.
Edit: By the way if you're looking for information on this, I've been getting mine mostly from the Lawfare blog because it's the only objective source I could find and it includes the actual amendment texts rather than just blurting out their own hyperbolic interpretation of it.
@BigJohn It doesn't state U.S. Citizens are included, it specifically states U.S. Citizens are NOT included...
I didn't claim that it did, just that it's vague as fuck. It doesn't even mention whether someone is a US citizen or not.
But that's irrelevant. What pisses me off are two things.
First, that what's going on is bullshit either way you twist it. Government assassinations and indefinite detention without trials are horrid, US citizen or not. I don't care that it's only for non-US citizens (which by the way, didn't that one American get killed by drones a couple of months ago without trial?). Unless someone out there believes that Americans are superior to other people, it doesn't make sense to even talk about that division. Everyone should have rights. And if our government is gonna kill and arrest people, those people should at least get a trial.
Second, that there's basically zero useful information in the media. I was thinking, "hey, there's a lot of vagueness going on. Let's go check out what the papers are saying about this". Nope. They don't quote the bill, they don't talk about what's in it, they just speculate. I had to go and read the whole thing myself just to figure out wtf is even going on.
Then the following section is where it specifies that US citizens are included:
Looks like you did to me but maybe I misinterpreted it?
First, that what's going on is bullshit either way you twist it. Government assassinations and indefinite detention without trials are horrid, US citizen or not. I don't care that it's only for non-US citizens (which by the way, didn't that one American get killed by drones a couple of months ago without trial?). Unless someone out there believes that Americans are superior to other people, it doesn't make sense to even talk about that division. Everyone should have rights. And if our government is gonna kill and arrest people, those people should at least get a trial.
Agreed. If you're talking about Anwar Al-Awlaki yes he did get killed in a targetted campaign, and that's part of why I suspect congress is rushing to codify crap like this into law that essentially states that if you're a threat we can do whatever we want.
Thats the main reason why I think this is terrible even in the state where it simply reaffirms what is already considered law. The U.S. has justified suspending habeas corpus (for non-citizens) in pretty much every war we've been in, but this will be the first time (I think?) it's actually written into law, not interpreted by precedent. Though I suppose the results are the same either way.
Second, that there's basically zero useful information in the media. I was thinking, "hey, there's a lot of vagueness going on. Let's go check out what the papers are saying about this". Nope. They don't quote the bill, they don't talk about what's in it, they just speculate. I had to go and read the whole thing myself just to figure out wtf is even going on.
Again I agree, I got all of my information from the Lawfare blog and they did constantly post the text from the amendments as well as excerpts from the debate transcripts.
Much as I hate the media though, the majority of this happened in a span of about two days with new information coming in every 2 hours, all of it vague and subjective, hard to interpret even at the best of times. The only people who picked it up and ran with it were the doom criers who had no ethical problems with advertising the least possible applications of the text to whip everyone into a fucking panic... but I guess that's what it takes to get people interested in politics these days.
Thanks for the good info, both of you. That cleared up alot. I've been watching this "story" but tend to be put off by sensationalist articles as well. I just want the facts, jeez I'll have to check out that site.
Looks like you did to me but maybe I misinterpreted it?
Oh I see what you mean. I guess I said is kinda backwards. My logic was "it doesn't specifically say that US citizens are excluded, so I guess they're included?". Which is what I should have said, but just kinda said the last part without the first. Oh well, my bad.
At any case, yeah, this thing is BS for other reasons anyways.
i think it's a load of bollox, and if i thought it would do any good, i'd love to write a letter to just about every news place in the country saying something along the lines of "fine, if that's the case, fire a teacher, i'll take their job with the lowered pension and the 4 months of holiday time every year, and the better than minimum wage salery. and i'll even make sure all the kids in my class pass their exams".
at the end of the day, in a country which keeps having "a shortage of teachers", and more importantly, a shortage of jobs. there are plenty of people who could replace our current teachers quite happily with what our teachers are currently paid.
UK national payscales for teachers who only have the basic qualifications (not including london, which are higher):
£21,588 p/a
benefits:
6 weeks holiday during summer, 2 weeks holiday for christmas, 2 weeks holiday for easter, a weeks holiday in between summer/christmas/easter/summer. total 13 weeks holiday.
attractive pension (almost double the average private sector pension).
basic qualifications for being a teacher in the UK:
college level education which must include 5 GCSE's at grades A to C, two of which must be english, maths, or science. A level (college) must include a childcare component and either maths english or science.
people with those qualifications can teach at primary and middle schools.
i actually have better qualifications than that. just FYI. i hold:
GCSE level:
A* maths
B combined sciences (counts as 2 B's)
D English Language
C English Literature
C French (though i'll admit i can't remember a jot of it now)
B design technology
C dutch equivilent (i went to college in holland).
A level (college)
AS/A2, B grade in Maths
AS/A2, C grade in chemistry
AS/A2, C grade in physics
want to know what i earned ever since i got my first job, dispite my qualifications?
£11673 p/a
benefits:
4 weeks holiday
private pension if you can afford to pay for it on minimum wage.
oh, and what was it someone said on the page back about "maybe if people went and got qualified they could get those jobs" etc. just curious as to why those same people largely think getting "qualified" on a games design course is a waste of time... seriously, i'd love to hear the double standard there.
now, before this continues, as i said i'd drop out and i intend to. try to bear in mind that regardless of peoples qualifications, they might still find themselves on the bottom line. and anyone above the bottom line AT THIS POINT IN TIME should considder themselves privilaged.
when things get better for the bottom line, then we can talk about making it better for those who've probably never even experienced it.
I really didn't want to kick you when you where down gir and you did say you where leaving the thread alone so I didn't bother to respond. But since you're back...
UK national payscales for teachers who only have the basic qualifications (not including london, which are higher):
£21,588 p/a
benefits:
6 weeks holiday during summer, 2 weeks holiday for christmas, 2 weeks holiday for easter, a weeks holiday in between summer/christmas/easter/summer. total 13 weeks holiday.
attractive pension (almost double the average private sector pension).
That isn't a sweet deal. That's shitty pay and the only perk is the holiday time off, which if you talk to teachers isn't why they do their job. Any one of them that takes the job for the time off quickly finds out how hard it is and that the perk alone isn't enough to keep them in the job. Anyone who takes a teaching job for the "cake, time off" isn't anyone you want teaching.
As for the other "benefits" go ahead heap the criticism on the teachers, take what they have and keep hitting them like they are some kind of magical budget balancing pinata and wonder why the next few generations are so pitifully stupid and firmly planted in poverty of which they will never pull out of.
Teachers didn't cause the problem, and there are a lot of other things that could cough up enough cash to balance budgets, like the military, like the banks that have rigged the system so they can't loose. Its very telling when a society will leverage itself heavily to fight in 2 wars but won't bother to pay teachers a decent wage and instead decides to make them out to be villains that are somehow draining the system dry by educating people.
It's sad that Brittan has made the same poor choices the US has made.
Honestly, if you think its such a sweet deal and you're qualified, go for it, start applying.
Why does your shitty situation need to be the line that everyone else falls below?
I'm sure we can find some homeless guy who makes £3 a month and claim that you're living the high life on £11673. He never gets any time off from begging so why should you? What if, your wages went down every few years while your cost of living keeps raising?
oh, and what was it someone said on the page back about "maybe if people went and got qualified they could get those jobs" etc. just curious as to why those same people largely think getting "qualified" on a games design course is a waste of time... seriously, i'd love to hear the double standard there.
COMPLETELY different skill sets and COMPLETELY different requirements.
You can look at a game artists portfolio and know right away if they have what it takes. No need for years of schooling, no need for paper credentials, 1-2min with their portfolio. If they turn out to be a bad hire the only thing that happens is some bad game art is made and you shelve it and the person who made it... oh noes... world has ended.
Teaching, wow... if only it was as easy to gauge teaching ability. If only they could learn everything needed to learn by sitting down with a piece of paper and drawing fruit and furries for 2-3 years.
I don't want idiots teaching my kids, no one does. They only get one shot at an education and if you waste that time, you set an entire generation behind and set society on a downward path that is hard to reverse. Even one teacher having a bad year could set a student back. Considering they are responsible for more and more students each year they have a greater chance to turn out record numbers of people who aren't ready.
There isn't really any way to make sure smart people are hired as teachers besides making them go through all the training. If you think your education is the norm for someone in your situation and that everyone that makes as little as you do is qualified to teach, I think you're off your nut.
If there is any career that we should be heaping money and benefits and aplomb on, it's teachers. They are literally 50 million times more important to society than football (american or european) stars, yet get paid an insignificant faction. It shows how messed up capitalism has destroyed society that the money is so prevalent in sports (circuses) yet not in our future (teachers).
That's the typical trend isn't it: the less actual use you are to society, the more money you get. One one end you have teachers, nurses, farmers etc. the other you have film stars, sports stars and that type of thing.
If there is any career that we should be heaping money and benefits and aplomb on, it's teachers. They are literally 50 million times more important to society than football (american or european) stars, yet get paid an insignificant faction. It shows how messed up capitalism has destroyed society that the money is so prevalent in sports (circuses) yet not in our future (teachers).
Agreed.
This is the way I feel about teachers and astronauts. Astronauts should have walked down a red carpet to the shuttle instead of "actors".
The days have reversed where role models are not of anything important or where you have to use your brain. Now role models are the blasted "reality stars" of tv. Like the disgusting Kardashian family. Unreal. :poly142:
That isn't a sweet deal. That's shitty pay and the only perk is the holiday time off, which if you talk to teachers isn't why they do their job. Any one of them that takes the job for the time off quickly finds out how hard it is and that the perk alone isn't enough to keep them in the job. Anyone who takes a teaching job for the "cake, time off" isn't anyone you want teaching.
It's not a sweet deal, but it isn't shitty. That paycheck is more than an entry level, degree wielding game programmer is going to see, and that programmer isn't going to see ten weeks of holiday time a year.
I used to agree with the angry "why do football players make so much money" argument until I heard a report that a career in football will only last 5 years and you shave, on average, 20 years off of your lifespan due to repeated head and neck injuries.
It's not a sweet deal, but it isn't shitty. That paycheck is more than an entry level, degree wielding game programmer is going to see, and that programmer isn't going to see ten weeks of holiday time a year.
His job also doesn't carry the same social responsibility that a teacher does.
There also is a chance that he'll be laid off and have more than enough time off while looking for another job...
I used to agree with the angry "why do football players make so much money" argument until I heard a report that a career in football will only last 5 years and you shave, on average, 20 years off of your lifespan due to repeated head and neck injuries.
I still fall in that category, even though the majority of them make the league minimum which works out to roughly between $2.8 - $3mill over their life time.
That is straight pay not including endorsements or other jobs that are spawned from their affiliation with the league.
The average person will earn something between $1.3 - $2.5Mil over their life time and it has to stretch like you said 20+ more years. The average person also accumulates it at a much slower rate and has less opportunities and disposable cash to invest in various things that could grow their wealth.
Do teachers do anything beyond day care? I don't know since I didn't go to public school (I watched TV and played video games instead), but I'm always surprised how few people are able to even read very well.
Maybe they are doing a great job working with the students they have, and Americans are really just that stupid.
Teachers really don't get paid that much anyway, even for doing day care, which is a shitty job.
Do teachers do anything beyond day care? I don't know since I didn't go to public school (I watched TV and played video games instead), but I'm always surprised how few people are able to even read very well.
Maybe they are doing a great job working with the students they have, and Americans are really just that stupid.
Teachers really don't get paid that much anyway, even for doing day care, which is a shitty job.
Do you have, I don´t know, literally anything to back up your assertions that Teachers are glorified baby sitters? American schools when adjusted for children living below poverty level are within the top 10 of the world. It's only because 1 in 4 American children are living in poverty (and 1 in 7 malnourished) that the overall scores (and reputation) are so low. American schools could obviously be a lot better, but it's not the semi socialized method they use now that is the problem, it's the constant attacks and defunding from right wing (not just republicans, I mean objectively right wing on a political spectrum, which includes most Democrats) that makes them worse and worse as time goes on.
Yes schools need more funding, the curriculum needs to be overseen by a (legitimate) federal body so states like Texas can't have custom written white-washed text books, but even if every teacher had a ludicrous salary and every school billions of dollars, until the insane wealth inequality is adjusted so that the vast majority of Americans are making a basic living wage, American schools aren't going to improve their outcomes.
Now in the states that have already defunded their departments of education till there are 62 students per class, yes they are self-admittedly by the teachers themselves, just very shitty daycares, but again, that's an end result of defunding education, not a problem with the system of the American school systems.
Do teachers do anything beyond day care? I don't know since I didn't go to public school (I watched TV and played video games instead), but I'm always surprised how few people are able to even read very well.
Maybe they are doing a great job working with the students they have, and Americans are really just that stupid.
Teachers really don't get paid that much anyway, even for doing day care, which is a shitty job.
Its a lack of priorities outside of the system and misguided priorities inside the system.
Outside the system:
Kids are fed a steady diet of "you can be the next idol/Disney/Nickelodeon pop star and have your own show by the time your 11". If you don't make it, worship the ones that do. That's your whole reason for being!
Then there is the lack of parental will and involvement.
For whatever reason parents just don't see it as a priority. Be it laziness, economic or social issues they just aren't there and they aren't pushing the kids to do anything. It's like once the kid turns 5 and is in school, they are another persons problem, phew glad that's over.
You can't force kids to learn. Its not cool, so even the ones that might want to are turned off to it by almost every force in society.
The overcrowding in the classrooms leads to kids not getting the student/teacher attention they need to really drive lessons home and make sure they get it. Some kids are fine with it and do ok, others don't and there isn't any help for them unless the parents step in, which they don't.
Within the system the biggest factors I see are:
Constant underfunding.
- The military wants 2 billion, make it 3! Schools need 2million, give them 1million to fight over, make sure most of that goes to principles and superintendents.
- Taxes and levies being voted down by crotchety people who don't have kids in school and would rather keep their .02 cents, out of principle rather than make sure kids have textbooks.
Overburdening of teachers and a mentality that test scores come before learning (AKA no child left behind) is a huge problem. It created an entire culture that pushes fact memorization and regurgitation, so they take tests well and forget whatever they "learned" a few days later. Very little reasoning or critical thinking being used. Who fought what battle when doesn't really matter as much as how, why and what the ramifications where.
Add all those things together and its pretty hard to lay it all at the teachers feet. Especially when they have so many kids and only see them for a short time each day. Teachers are poor substitutes for parents and aren't paid to fill that role, they are barely paid to fill the role they do. Of course we should make sure they are doing their jobs and that the bad ones go, but we put a lot on their shoulders and then go out of our way to hamper their job at every turn... nicely done society, way to go.
It's not so much that the school system has broken down, it has to some degree, but that society has crumbled around it. The structure that is required for the education system to function isn't there. It's not an island unto itself that you send your kids to and magically get them back s-m-a-r-t. You need the entire system functioning for it work and its not.
It doesn't help that politicians constantly use education as magical budget balancing pinata so of course is going to start to fall apart.
I praise the teachers for making the best of a very bad situation. Anyone who can find a reason to stay in that job dealing with that much crap that is out of their control should be praised. I stand with any teachers in trying to fix the system and stand against anyone looking to take money from schools and ship it to giant corporations or to the military just to line peoples pockets.
As of last Jan the US has spent 4.1 trillion on the war on terror and continually gives the pentagon 2% more than it asks for. 7 trillion just shoveling money into wall streets pockets, but education? Oh yes sir get the wood chipper!
I would never support non certified private sector people teaching in schools just to save a few bucks. Pay teachers well, hire more of them to reduce class sizes. Get rid of the CEO mentality that principles and superintendents are captains of industry and should be paid 2-3-4 times what teachers make.
Do teachers do anything beyond day care? I don't know since I didn't go to public school (I watched TV and played video games instead), but I'm always surprised how few people are able to even read very well.
Maybe they are doing a great job working with the students they have, and Americans are really just that stupid.
Teachers really don't get paid that much anyway, even for doing day care, which is a shitty job.
Honestly, it's like college with a greater percentage of students that don't want to be there - that percentage drops with honors and gifted programs. Also smaller class sizes, I don't think k-12 has reached overcrowding to the point that they teach you in an auditorium.
Vig, so to sum up what you're saying, which I agree with, in short, the system doesn't work. So then why all the praise towards it?
Are you aware of the tactic called "starve the beast"? It's the conservative go-to method. Stop funding a system till problems arise, then point to said problems (caused by your attacks to it) and say, "see! it doesn't work, gut it some more!" Examples: Department of education, Social Security, welfare, post office, DMV, housing assistance, basically any tax payer funded social service within the US other than the military (though they are working on attacking troup benefits like the VA).
I think that may be giving the right too much credit poop. Politics and government are a complex combination of greed, manipulation, and general human stupidity. Sure some may see the big picture, maybe they game the system, but more likely they're just making the most of the given situation regardless of whose "fault" it is. There are plenty of people who genuinly think these failed monetary systems are actually good for the nation. It's what people do, they find what works for them then rationalize it as the right thing to do. And here lies the problem, everyone thinks what they're doing is just, the vast majority of people do not very well understand the full implications of what's actually happening and how it affects the wold at large.
Actually, there was just recently a major republican aid that had been with the party for something like 30 years that quit. He wrote a big long article outlining exactly why, and major part of it was that the republican party has specific strategies to do exactly as poop described. It's not a conspiracy theory at all, it is something that exists and is being done very deliberately.
(wish I could remember the article but I can't off hand, I'll look later if needed)
Are you talking about Mike Lofgren going ape on truth-out.org?
Probably this?
They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be "forced" to make "hard choices" - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked.
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
Wait, what? "The party that is programmatically against government"? Since when are Republicans against Government? Biggest government inceases in recent history have been under Republican administrations.
And you're still only describing basically powerful people "helping out" their friends, aka corruption. It's a far cry from some conspiracy to defund education (for what purpose? to keep the poor people dumb?) in order to fund the military. It's simple run of the mill greed, not some conspiracy of evil people in a smoke-filled room.
Do you guys not know about the existence of think tanks? There are far more right wing ones with funding than left wing, and their sole purpose is to come up with ways to shift the overton window and enact policy that benefits their donors, who are all wealthy conservatives who got wealthy in the current system and want to entrench it further.
For every gullible tea party moron that believes 100% they are justly pursuing a good thing in their horrible policies, there are 30 more who are knowingly working off a "fuck you, got mine" mentality.
Wait, what? "The party that is programmatically against government"? Since when are Republicans against Government? Biggest government inceases in recent history have been under Republican administrations.
And you're still only describing basically powerful people "helping out" their friends, aka corruption. It's a far cry from some conspiracy to defund education (for what purpose? to keep the poor people dumb?) in order to fund the military. It's simple run of the mill greed, not some conspiracy of evil people in a smoke-filled room.
Well, I'm just quoting a guy who was a senior republican staffer for like 30 years. So I'd assume you'd be better of reading the article he wrote on the subject than listening to me. :P
Wait, what? "The party that is programmatically against government"? Since when are Republicans against Government? Biggest government inceases in recent history have been under Republican administrations.
And you're still only describing basically powerful people "helping out" their friends, aka corruption. It's a far cry from some conspiracy to defund education (for what purpose? to keep the poor people dumb?) in order to fund the military. It's simple run of the mill greed, not some conspiracy of evil people in a smoke-filled room.
I think you're getting hung up on "oh no not my party the would never..." but don't worry the other party has some of the same freak shows in its ranks.
I think the biggest coming out party for these types was Ryan's plan to "fix medicare" by flat out shutting it down for anyone under 55.
Also take a good look at the Bush/Gingrich/Perry/Bachmann/Cain plan to privatize social security with an "opt in" private account, which is just getting people to opt out of paying into social security, starve the beast and it also allows them to divert funds heading to a trust fund and into "the market", no doubt into "recommended funds". SS is solvent until 2030 and not contributing to the deficit so why are they talking about it now? Because this are messed up.
Why is it that the automakers turns around so quickly? Is it because they shafted the UAW and their suppliers hardcore? Which came first the crisis or the plans to emerge from an "organized bankruptcy" quickly.
Who cares if it wasn't a secret memo like the host said, it still shows you exactly what special interest groups like Republicans and Democrats (that's all political parties' are anymore) are willing to do to get ahead. They don't care who they step on along the way.
I used to agree with the angry "why do football players make so much money" argument until I heard a report that a career in football will only last 5 years and you shave, on average, 20 years off of your lifespan due to repeated head and neck injuries.
Now that doesn't seem to benefit mankind now does it?
Because they put themselves in that situation, you think they deserve the money? I guess you could say that about anybody, but teachers are educating our future.
I think that may be giving the right too much credit poop. Politics and government are a complex combination of greed, manipulation, and general human stupidity. Sure some may see the big picture, maybe they game the system, but more likely they're just making the most of the given situation regardless of whose "fault" it is. There are plenty of people who genuinly think these failed monetary systems are actually good for the nation. It's what people do, they find what works for them then rationalize it as the right thing to do. And here lies the problem, everyone thinks what they're doing is just, the vast majority of people do not very well understand the full implications of what's actually happening and how it affects the wold at large.
And you're still only describing basically powerful people "helping out" their friends, aka corruption. It's a far cry from some conspiracy to defund education (for what purpose? to keep the poor people dumb?) in order to fund the military. It's simple run of the mill greed, not some conspiracy of evil people in a smoke-filled room.
Not to single you out Bigjohn, but it seems to me you might be one big walking hypocrite.
Sure you can take crazyfingers' quote there and turn it into an X-Files scenario, but like you're both saying, it comes down to greed. If people don't know this already, they really need to wake up and smell that Starbucks they buy every morning.
As our history states, wars bring economies out of recession. So of course military will always get their funding while the little guys in our country suffer.
The question does remain though, why does every politician talk about better education and yet do nothing about it? It's just so they can get elected. It's decades of the same lies all the time.
Occupy Melbourne (Australia) protestor is stripped of her clothes, since she is wearing some sort of tent costume. They leave her sitting in a public park in nothing but her bra and panties
It's true that recessions tend to turn around with the outbreak of war. War is profitable and it mobilizes the economy. Unfortunately, these wars are started on purpose. The banks stand to make a lot of money if a war breaks out. Governments needs weapons to fight wars and they need money to buy those weapons. So where do they go? Banks. If you were a bank and you knew that wars made you richer, wouldn't you try to incite wars? Even better, you could loan to both sides of that war and make even more money. No matter which side wins, you still make out like a fat cat, all on the backs of the common citizen. That is why the military will always get the most funding. If they could make public education profitable for the banks, I guarantee you the military would be whoring themselves out for money.
Interesting documentary. It really shows how delusion the 1% is, by their own words, in the belief that they justified in making that much money and more if they can, that they have some moral high ground in what they're doing. Friedman is probably the most delusional of them all and he's just an economist. It's quite clear that he views anything less that giving total monetary power to the richest people in the country is socialism. Mr. Johnson's father and adviser were scared shitless by his documentary because of how it would expose the greed of the richest people.
I would love to see the average percent of school drop outs in the military.
When others are talking about conspiracy theories about keeping the public dumb, I know several high school drop outs that went straight into the military.
For various reasons, family issues or just plain being stupid.
Leading me to believe that is where they get most of their enlisted.
So it's definitely not something that is just "theory", this is borderline fact in my eyes. Whether intentional or not.
I would love to see the average percent of school drop outs in the military.
When others are talking about conspiracy theories about keeping the public dumb, I know several high school drop outs that went straight into the military.
For various reasons, family issues or just plain being stupid.
Leading me to believe that is where they get most of their enlisted.
So it's definitely not something that is just "theory", this is borderline fact in my eyes. Whether intentional or not.
The figures are old, but military.com says 5900 dropouts joined the military in 2006.
It's true that recessions tend to turn around with the outbreak of war.
This is such bullshit. You know that during WW2 people planted "victory gardens" so they would have something to eat? All sorts of shit was rationed.
After WW2 it was a lot easier to find a job in the US since there were 418,500 more job openings compared to before the war.
And of course the war on terror has been great for our economy, except for the fact that spending money on war is the single worst way money can be spent. You spend money on things designed to destroy goods and resources -- what do you think will happen? You end up with no money and fewer resources.
So what you're saying is after WW2 jobs opened up? Sweet. Problem solved.
hahaha
There's a new "war-on" that aims to solve a lot of the problems in the US.
The war on the environment.
[Cave Johnson voice]
Sure more pollution means more people getting sick but that also means more people not making it to retirement age. Those that are already there will be too weak to survive.
Social Security SOLVED!
It also means more job openings without having to create more jobs (the job creators need a break from all that job creating) we can just run a bunch of people through the same highly toxic jobs. Joblessness and homelessness SOLVED!
If we fill your stomach up full of tumors you won't be hungry. Hunger SOLVED!
For those of you would could stand to loose a few lbs, you will thank us, its like an expensive lap-band procedure without surgery!
Obesity SOLVED!
It will also give the economy a giant shot in the arm.
Well the healthcare industry will do pretty well, provided it can stay for profit and stay away from those dirty socialist who want to bring costs down in line with the rest of the world. Economy SOLVED!
You may not be a job creator but you could be a job OPENING creator!
Just hug a smoke stack, get cancer and die, America is depending on you.
[/Cave Johnson voice]
Not to single you out Bigjohn, but it seems to me you might be one big walking hypocrite.
Sure you can take crazyfingers' quote there and turn it into an X-Files scenario, but like you're both saying, it comes down to greed. If people don't know this already, they really need to wake up and smell that Starbucks they buy every morning.
As our history states, wars bring economies out of recession. So of course military will always get their funding while the little guys in our country suffer.
The question does remain though, why does every politician talk about better education and yet do nothing about it? It's just so they can get elected. It's decades of the same lies all the time.
Go back and read the post I was commenting on.
He was describing a tactic, meaning it's used intentionally, called "starving the beast". Where for no reason other than to destroy something, they maliciously damage it to the point where it's not working, then point to it not working as reason to terminally kill it. The things being government programs and departments.
That's straight out of x-files dude.
Now, if the argument was that they have a list of priorities, and their buddies in the military industrial complex come first, while the little-person is dead last, then it would make sense. Like I said, that's greed, and that's (in my personal opinion) what government is all about. But maliciously destroying Social Security or the Department of Education for the sole reason of destroying those things to hurt the little-person, is just being paranoid.
Replies
This BILL... is The End of the Republic. But hopefully the Bill will either Absolutely tyrannize the sheople or wake up the patriots... this is tyranny. Vague BIllS ARE TYRANNY. period. Our constitution is Absolute and yet fits in your pocket.
My point is this...
If you don't defend the "terrorist" for the sake of JUSTICE, well then there's no point. "justice for all" means nothing anymore.
sorry for rambling.
this National Defense Authorization Act has me livid.
This essentially re-affirms the law as it currently exists: According to the Hamdi decision, if you're an American citizen/legal resident or captured in the U.S. you are entitled to due process. According to Latif, if you are not an American or captured in the U.S., you are completely screwed. It is still incredibly bad for congress to codify this concept into law in my opinion but that's another topic...
The reason why there's so much misinformation and confusion about this is because a lot has happened in a very short amount of time, and bloggers citing old articles that reference the original text are continued to be spread around. Meanwhile the text is still confusing, with people like Amash still insisting that it does apply to U.S. citizens. This isn't intended to be a time line but this is basically what happened, mostly in order of events:
1) Graham/McCain/Levin introduce an amendment to the bill, regarding detainment of people in the war on terror, it is written intentionally vague so that it could be applied to American citizens. (I say intentionally based on McCains comments.) This is obviously very bad.
2) Obama administration threatens to veto the bill stating that the detainee provisions (among other things) add too much legal ambiguity and confusion that would make it difficult to operate. Politico and other sites are meanwhile writing articles about the damages of this particular section of the bill.
3) The amendment is attempted to be passed by voice vote but Rand Paul blocks it, it is defeated in a roll call vote. Debate ensues about how to fix it or whether or not it should be fixed or thrown out.
4) Senator Feinstein proposes adding the word "abroad" after "is captured" in order to specify that it doesn't apply to people in the U.S. This amendment is rejected. Politico who has been writing articles about this now uses the defeat of Feinstein's amendment as proof that the senate wants to strip you of your constitutional rights. (I'm not 100% sure why her amendment failed but probably because it just adds more room for interpretation and the bill still doesn't include legal u.s. residents at this point, only citizens. If anyone wants to try to figure it out, a full transcript of the debate is available here)
5) Feinstein introduces another amendment which aims to clear up the ambiguity of the bill by explicitly stating it does not change current law, and does not apply to american citizens, legal residents, or people inside the United States. Amendment passes.
Edit: By the way if you're looking for information on this, I've been getting mine mostly from the Lawfare blog because it's the only objective source I could find and it includes the actual amendment texts rather than just blurting out their own hyperbolic interpretation of it.
I didn't claim that it did, just that it's vague as fuck. It doesn't even mention whether someone is a US citizen or not.
But that's irrelevant. What pisses me off are two things.
First, that what's going on is bullshit either way you twist it. Government assassinations and indefinite detention without trials are horrid, US citizen or not. I don't care that it's only for non-US citizens (which by the way, didn't that one American get killed by drones a couple of months ago without trial?). Unless someone out there believes that Americans are superior to other people, it doesn't make sense to even talk about that division. Everyone should have rights. And if our government is gonna kill and arrest people, those people should at least get a trial.
Second, that there's basically zero useful information in the media. I was thinking, "hey, there's a lot of vagueness going on. Let's go check out what the papers are saying about this". Nope. They don't quote the bill, they don't talk about what's in it, they just speculate. I had to go and read the whole thing myself just to figure out wtf is even going on.
Agreed. If you're talking about Anwar Al-Awlaki yes he did get killed in a targetted campaign, and that's part of why I suspect congress is rushing to codify crap like this into law that essentially states that if you're a threat we can do whatever we want.
Thats the main reason why I think this is terrible even in the state where it simply reaffirms what is already considered law. The U.S. has justified suspending habeas corpus (for non-citizens) in pretty much every war we've been in, but this will be the first time (I think?) it's actually written into law, not interpreted by precedent. Though I suppose the results are the same either way.
Again I agree, I got all of my information from the Lawfare blog and they did constantly post the text from the amendments as well as excerpts from the debate transcripts.
Much as I hate the media though, the majority of this happened in a span of about two days with new information coming in every 2 hours, all of it vague and subjective, hard to interpret even at the best of times. The only people who picked it up and ran with it were the doom criers who had no ethical problems with advertising the least possible applications of the text to whip everyone into a fucking panic... but I guess that's what it takes to get people interested in politics these days.
edit: corrected for relevence
I just saw this and I had to share.
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/cleanplatecharlie/2011/11/martha_stewart_pepper_sprays_a.php
Oh I see what you mean. I guess I said is kinda backwards. My logic was "it doesn't specifically say that US citizens are excluded, so I guess they're included?". Which is what I should have said, but just kinda said the last part without the first. Oh well, my bad.
At any case, yeah, this thing is BS for other reasons anyways.
http://www.livestream.com/occupyptown
What an ever loving load of complete bollocks.
UK national payscales for teachers who only have the basic qualifications (not including london, which are higher):
£21,588 p/a
benefits:
6 weeks holiday during summer, 2 weeks holiday for christmas, 2 weeks holiday for easter, a weeks holiday in between summer/christmas/easter/summer. total 13 weeks holiday.
attractive pension (almost double the average private sector pension).
basic qualifications for being a teacher in the UK:
college level education which must include 5 GCSE's at grades A to C, two of which must be english, maths, or science. A level (college) must include a childcare component and either maths english or science.
people with those qualifications can teach at primary and middle schools.
i actually have better qualifications than that. just FYI. i hold:
GCSE level:
A* maths
B combined sciences (counts as 2 B's)
D English Language
C English Literature
C French (though i'll admit i can't remember a jot of it now)
B design technology
C dutch equivilent (i went to college in holland).
A level (college)
AS/A2, B grade in Maths
AS/A2, C grade in chemistry
AS/A2, C grade in physics
want to know what i earned ever since i got my first job, dispite my qualifications?
£11673 p/a
benefits:
4 weeks holiday
private pension if you can afford to pay for it on minimum wage.
oh, and what was it someone said on the page back about "maybe if people went and got qualified they could get those jobs" etc. just curious as to why those same people largely think getting "qualified" on a games design course is a waste of time... seriously, i'd love to hear the double standard there.
now, before this continues, as i said i'd drop out and i intend to. try to bear in mind that regardless of peoples qualifications, they might still find themselves on the bottom line. and anyone above the bottom line AT THIS POINT IN TIME should considder themselves privilaged.
when things get better for the bottom line, then we can talk about making it better for those who've probably never even experienced it.
As for the other "benefits" go ahead heap the criticism on the teachers, take what they have and keep hitting them like they are some kind of magical budget balancing pinata and wonder why the next few generations are so pitifully stupid and firmly planted in poverty of which they will never pull out of.
Teachers didn't cause the problem, and there are a lot of other things that could cough up enough cash to balance budgets, like the military, like the banks that have rigged the system so they can't loose. Its very telling when a society will leverage itself heavily to fight in 2 wars but won't bother to pay teachers a decent wage and instead decides to make them out to be villains that are somehow draining the system dry by educating people.
It's sad that Brittan has made the same poor choices the US has made.
Honestly, if you think its such a sweet deal and you're qualified, go for it, start applying.
Why does your shitty situation need to be the line that everyone else falls below?
I'm sure we can find some homeless guy who makes £3 a month and claim that you're living the high life on £11673. He never gets any time off from begging so why should you? What if, your wages went down every few years while your cost of living keeps raising?
COMPLETELY different skill sets and COMPLETELY different requirements.
You can look at a game artists portfolio and know right away if they have what it takes. No need for years of schooling, no need for paper credentials, 1-2min with their portfolio. If they turn out to be a bad hire the only thing that happens is some bad game art is made and you shelve it and the person who made it... oh noes... world has ended.
Teaching, wow... if only it was as easy to gauge teaching ability. If only they could learn everything needed to learn by sitting down with a piece of paper and drawing fruit and furries for 2-3 years.
I don't want idiots teaching my kids, no one does. They only get one shot at an education and if you waste that time, you set an entire generation behind and set society on a downward path that is hard to reverse. Even one teacher having a bad year could set a student back. Considering they are responsible for more and more students each year they have a greater chance to turn out record numbers of people who aren't ready.
There isn't really any way to make sure smart people are hired as teachers besides making them go through all the training. If you think your education is the norm for someone in your situation and that everyone that makes as little as you do is qualified to teach, I think you're off your nut.
Seems a bit backwards.
Agreed.
This is the way I feel about teachers and astronauts. Astronauts should have walked down a red carpet to the shuttle instead of "actors".
The days have reversed where role models are not of anything important or where you have to use your brain. Now role models are the blasted "reality stars" of tv. Like the disgusting Kardashian family. Unreal. :poly142:
It's not a sweet deal, but it isn't shitty. That paycheck is more than an entry level, degree wielding game programmer is going to see, and that programmer isn't going to see ten weeks of holiday time a year.
There also is a chance that he'll be laid off and have more than enough time off while looking for another job...
That is straight pay not including endorsements or other jobs that are spawned from their affiliation with the league.
The average person will earn something between $1.3 - $2.5Mil over their life time and it has to stretch like you said 20+ more years. The average person also accumulates it at a much slower rate and has less opportunities and disposable cash to invest in various things that could grow their wealth.
Maybe they are doing a great job working with the students they have, and Americans are really just that stupid.
Teachers really don't get paid that much anyway, even for doing day care, which is a shitty job.
Do you have, I don´t know, literally anything to back up your assertions that Teachers are glorified baby sitters? American schools when adjusted for children living below poverty level are within the top 10 of the world. It's only because 1 in 4 American children are living in poverty (and 1 in 7 malnourished) that the overall scores (and reputation) are so low. American schools could obviously be a lot better, but it's not the semi socialized method they use now that is the problem, it's the constant attacks and defunding from right wing (not just republicans, I mean objectively right wing on a political spectrum, which includes most Democrats) that makes them worse and worse as time goes on.
Yes schools need more funding, the curriculum needs to be overseen by a (legitimate) federal body so states like Texas can't have custom written white-washed text books, but even if every teacher had a ludicrous salary and every school billions of dollars, until the insane wealth inequality is adjusted so that the vast majority of Americans are making a basic living wage, American schools aren't going to improve their outcomes.
Now in the states that have already defunded their departments of education till there are 62 students per class, yes they are self-admittedly by the teachers themselves, just very shitty daycares, but again, that's an end result of defunding education, not a problem with the system of the American school systems.
Outside the system:
Kids are fed a steady diet of "you can be the next idol/Disney/Nickelodeon pop star and have your own show by the time your 11". If you don't make it, worship the ones that do. That's your whole reason for being!
Then there is the lack of parental will and involvement.
For whatever reason parents just don't see it as a priority. Be it laziness, economic or social issues they just aren't there and they aren't pushing the kids to do anything. It's like once the kid turns 5 and is in school, they are another persons problem, phew glad that's over.
You can't force kids to learn. Its not cool, so even the ones that might want to are turned off to it by almost every force in society.
The overcrowding in the classrooms leads to kids not getting the student/teacher attention they need to really drive lessons home and make sure they get it. Some kids are fine with it and do ok, others don't and there isn't any help for them unless the parents step in, which they don't.
Within the system the biggest factors I see are:
Constant underfunding.
- The military wants 2 billion, make it 3! Schools need 2million, give them 1million to fight over, make sure most of that goes to principles and superintendents.
- Taxes and levies being voted down by crotchety people who don't have kids in school and would rather keep their .02 cents, out of principle rather than make sure kids have textbooks.
Overburdening of teachers and a mentality that test scores come before learning (AKA no child left behind) is a huge problem. It created an entire culture that pushes fact memorization and regurgitation, so they take tests well and forget whatever they "learned" a few days later. Very little reasoning or critical thinking being used. Who fought what battle when doesn't really matter as much as how, why and what the ramifications where.
Add all those things together and its pretty hard to lay it all at the teachers feet. Especially when they have so many kids and only see them for a short time each day. Teachers are poor substitutes for parents and aren't paid to fill that role, they are barely paid to fill the role they do. Of course we should make sure they are doing their jobs and that the bad ones go, but we put a lot on their shoulders and then go out of our way to hamper their job at every turn... nicely done society, way to go.
It doesn't help that politicians constantly use education as magical budget balancing pinata so of course is going to start to fall apart.
I praise the teachers for making the best of a very bad situation. Anyone who can find a reason to stay in that job dealing with that much crap that is out of their control should be praised. I stand with any teachers in trying to fix the system and stand against anyone looking to take money from schools and ship it to giant corporations or to the military just to line peoples pockets.
As of last Jan the US has spent 4.1 trillion on the war on terror and continually gives the pentagon 2% more than it asks for. 7 trillion just shoveling money into wall streets pockets, but education? Oh yes sir get the wood chipper!
I would never support non certified private sector people teaching in schools just to save a few bucks. Pay teachers well, hire more of them to reduce class sizes. Get rid of the CEO mentality that principles and superintendents are captains of industry and should be paid 2-3-4 times what teachers make.
Honestly, it's like college with a greater percentage of students that don't want to be there - that percentage drops with honors and gifted programs. Also smaller class sizes, I don't think k-12 has reached overcrowding to the point that they teach you in an auditorium.
Are you aware of the tactic called "starve the beast"? It's the conservative go-to method. Stop funding a system till problems arise, then point to said problems (caused by your attacks to it) and say, "see! it doesn't work, gut it some more!" Examples: Department of education, Social Security, welfare, post office, DMV, housing assistance, basically any tax payer funded social service within the US other than the military (though they are working on attacking troup benefits like the VA).
(wish I could remember the article but I can't off hand, I'll look later if needed)
Probably this? http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
And you're still only describing basically powerful people "helping out" their friends, aka corruption. It's a far cry from some conspiracy to defund education (for what purpose? to keep the poor people dumb?) in order to fund the military. It's simple run of the mill greed, not some conspiracy of evil people in a smoke-filled room.
For every gullible tea party moron that believes 100% they are justly pursuing a good thing in their horrible policies, there are 30 more who are knowingly working off a "fuck you, got mine" mentality.
Well, I'm just quoting a guy who was a senior republican staffer for like 30 years. So I'd assume you'd be better of reading the article he wrote on the subject than listening to me. :P
I think the biggest coming out party for these types was Ryan's plan to "fix medicare" by flat out shutting it down for anyone under 55.
Also take a good look at the Bush/Gingrich/Perry/Bachmann/Cain plan to privatize social security with an "opt in" private account, which is just getting people to opt out of paying into social security, starve the beast and it also allows them to divert funds heading to a trust fund and into "the market", no doubt into "recommended funds". SS is solvent until 2030 and not contributing to the deficit so why are they talking about it now? Because this are messed up.
Why is it that the automakers turns around so quickly? Is it because they shafted the UAW and their suppliers hardcore? Which came first the crisis or the plans to emerge from an "organized bankruptcy" quickly.
Not sure where you're getting "my party would never" from what I said, I don't belong or associate myself with any party.
I'll just re-quote this....
Who cares if it wasn't a secret memo like the host said, it still shows you exactly what special interest groups like Republicans and Democrats (that's all political parties' are anymore) are willing to do to get ahead. They don't care who they step on along the way.
What you see as bullshit is relative to your level of knowledge.
[ame="
Now that doesn't seem to benefit mankind now does it?
Because they put themselves in that situation, you think they deserve the money? I guess you could say that about anybody, but teachers are educating our future.
Not to single you out Bigjohn, but it seems to me you might be one big walking hypocrite.
Sure you can take crazyfingers' quote there and turn it into an X-Files scenario, but like you're both saying, it comes down to greed. If people don't know this already, they really need to wake up and smell that Starbucks they buy every morning.
As our history states, wars bring economies out of recession. So of course military will always get their funding while the little guys in our country suffer.
The question does remain though, why does every politician talk about better education and yet do nothing about it? It's just so they can get elected. It's decades of the same lies all the time.
[ame="
It's true that recessions tend to turn around with the outbreak of war. War is profitable and it mobilizes the economy. Unfortunately, these wars are started on purpose. The banks stand to make a lot of money if a war breaks out. Governments needs weapons to fight wars and they need money to buy those weapons. So where do they go? Banks. If you were a bank and you knew that wars made you richer, wouldn't you try to incite wars? Even better, you could loan to both sides of that war and make even more money. No matter which side wins, you still make out like a fat cat, all on the backs of the common citizen. That is why the military will always get the most funding. If they could make public education profitable for the banks, I guarantee you the military would be whoring themselves out for money.
@MattQ86
Interesting documentary. It really shows how delusion the 1% is, by their own words, in the belief that they justified in making that much money and more if they can, that they have some moral high ground in what they're doing. Friedman is probably the most delusional of them all and he's just an economist. It's quite clear that he views anything less that giving total monetary power to the richest people in the country is socialism. Mr. Johnson's father and adviser were scared shitless by his documentary because of how it would expose the greed of the richest people.
I would love to see the average percent of school drop outs in the military.
When others are talking about conspiracy theories about keeping the public dumb, I know several high school drop outs that went straight into the military.
For various reasons, family issues or just plain being stupid.
Leading me to believe that is where they get most of their enlisted.
So it's definitely not something that is just "theory", this is borderline fact in my eyes. Whether intentional or not.
The figures are old, but military.com says 5900 dropouts joined the military in 2006.
This is such bullshit. You know that during WW2 people planted "victory gardens" so they would have something to eat? All sorts of shit was rationed.
After WW2 it was a lot easier to find a job in the US since there were 418,500 more job openings compared to before the war.
And of course the war on terror has been great for our economy, except for the fact that spending money on war is the single worst way money can be spent. You spend money on things designed to destroy goods and resources -- what do you think will happen? You end up with no money and fewer resources.
In other news, I liked this article:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/occupied-washington-occupy-congress
So what you're saying is after WW2 jobs opened up? Sweet. Problem solved.
There's a new "war-on" that aims to solve a lot of the problems in the US.
The war on the environment.
[Cave Johnson voice]
Sure more pollution means more people getting sick but that also means more people not making it to retirement age. Those that are already there will be too weak to survive.
Social Security SOLVED!
It also means more job openings without having to create more jobs (the job creators need a break from all that job creating) we can just run a bunch of people through the same highly toxic jobs.
Joblessness and homelessness SOLVED!
If we fill your stomach up full of tumors you won't be hungry.
Hunger SOLVED!
For those of you would could stand to loose a few lbs, you will thank us, its like an expensive lap-band procedure without surgery!
Obesity SOLVED!
It will also give the economy a giant shot in the arm.
Well the healthcare industry will do pretty well, provided it can stay for profit and stay away from those dirty socialist who want to bring costs down in line with the rest of the world.
Economy SOLVED!
You may not be a job creator but you could be a job OPENING creator!
Just hug a smoke stack, get cancer and die, America is depending on you.
[/Cave Johnson voice]
Go back and read the post I was commenting on.
He was describing a tactic, meaning it's used intentionally, called "starving the beast". Where for no reason other than to destroy something, they maliciously damage it to the point where it's not working, then point to it not working as reason to terminally kill it. The things being government programs and departments.
That's straight out of x-files dude.
Now, if the argument was that they have a list of priorities, and their buddies in the military industrial complex come first, while the little-person is dead last, then it would make sense. Like I said, that's greed, and that's (in my personal opinion) what government is all about. But maliciously destroying Social Security or the Department of Education for the sole reason of destroying those things to hurt the little-person, is just being paranoid.