PDA

View Full Version : The Great Obscenities in the US today.



Pages : [1] 2

jar
April 9th, 2014, 07:35 AM
There is a fairly high proportion of Americans who believe the US has become an immoral society. I tend to agree with them but perhaps we might differ slightly on specifics of the Great Obscenities that characterize and define the USA today and so I thought it might be productive to present for discussion what I see as the Great Obscenities in the US.

The first is the idea that profit should be the primary motivator and driving force for innovation and the second is that the purpose of the education system should be to train and prepare workers.

I cannot think of many things that are more obscene, immoral and destructive than those two fallacies.

Next is the idea that a corporation is a person and that money is equivalent to speech.

Next is the fallacy that health care, utilities and services like police, prisons, fire, roads, bridges or communication systems should be unregulated and profit driven.

Finally, the idea that beliefs that are simply refuted by facts and reality should be respected. In particular, the Christian Cult of Ignorance (remember I am a Christian and so not denigrating all Christians) as seen in the US with their avoidance school systems should be recognized for just what it really is. They should be allowed to hold their beliefs as silly as they might be but not to insert those beliefs into government, education, social policy or law.

snedwos
April 9th, 2014, 09:31 AM
For me, it is the Greatest Lie Ever Told: That poor people somehow all deserve to be poor. This is bullshit.

Jar, I agree with every single point you have made.

migo984
April 9th, 2014, 10:21 AM
And worse, these Great Obscentities are pervasive and their malign influence is spreading over the Pond.

pengeezer
April 9th, 2014, 02:52 PM
For me, it is the Greatest Lie Ever Told: That poor people somehow all deserve to be poor. This is bullshit.

Jar, I agree with every single point you have made.

True,poor people don't deserve to be poor, but some folks insist on living that way(for various reasons).


John

snedwos
April 9th, 2014, 04:02 PM
Far far fewer people than you might think.

HughC
April 9th, 2014, 11:19 PM
Bravo Jar!! We face a lot of the same obscenities here in Australia, not surprising as our Govts. look to the US for "inspiration". While identifying the issues is good it's fixing them that's near impossible.

Regards
Hugh

HughC
April 9th, 2014, 11:23 PM
Far far fewer people than you might think.

"I've been poor, very, very poor. I've been rich, very, very rich. I prefer to be rich" - Michael Cain, British actor (iirc).

jar
April 10th, 2014, 06:30 AM
Bravo Jar!! We face a lot of the same obscenities here in Australia, not surprising as our Govts. look to the US for "inspiration". While identifying the issues is good it's fixing them that's near impossible.

Regards
Hugh

I fear greatly that it is now (after the latest SCOTUS ruling) too late to do anything for the US. We are headed straight for third world Fascist Oligarchy if we are not already there. However the US can stand as a warning to those nations still considered First world and to emerging nations.

This is not unexpected at all and as early as Theodore Roosevelt we were warned about this.

The solutions are actually pretty simple but since the US decided not to educate an electorate it unlikely we could implement those solutions.

The problem is that it would take at least two generations to educate an electorate and I am not sure that even with the will to do that we have the time.

85AKbN
April 10th, 2014, 07:21 AM
I believe we are over regulated. That we should be free to choose (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/).

jar
April 10th, 2014, 07:41 AM
I believe we are over regulated. That we should be free to choose (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/).

Sorry but that is a empty statement. Where are we over regulated? What should we be free to choose?

85AKbN
April 10th, 2014, 08:27 AM
I believe we are over regulated. That we should be free to choose (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/).

Sorry but that is a empty statement. Where are we over regulated? What should we be free to choose?
You've got to watch the series to get your answer.

jar
April 10th, 2014, 08:35 AM
I believe we are over regulated. That we should be free to choose (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/).

Sorry but that is a empty statement. Where are we over regulated? What should we be free to choose?
You've got to watch the series to get your answer.

But we are discussing it here and I don't know anyway to discuss with Milton or a video.

Sorry but them's the facts.

85AKbN
April 10th, 2014, 09:33 AM
I believe we are over regulated. That we should be free to choose (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/).

Sorry but that is a empty statement. Where are we over regulated? What should we be free to choose?
You've got to watch the series to get your answer.

But we are discussing it here and I don't know anyway to discuss with Milton or a video.

Sorry but them's the facts.
It is a watch then discuss type situation.

jar
April 10th, 2014, 09:51 AM
I believe we are over regulated. That we should be free to choose (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/).

Sorry but that is a empty statement. Where are we over regulated? What should we be free to choose?
You've got to watch the series to get your answer.

But we are discussing it here and I don't know anyway to discuss with Milton or a video.

Sorry but them's the facts.
It is a watch then discuss type situation.

It is a bring Milton here or present the specifics. Sorry but watch and disc8uss may work for movies but not for a discussion thread. Don't waste my time with links to videos.

The idea that the goal of life revolves around economics or that what is good for an economy is good for society or an individual is a big part of the problems with the US.

85AKbN
April 10th, 2014, 10:43 AM
I believe we are over regulated. That we should be free to choose (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/).

Sorry but that is a empty statement. Where are we over regulated? What should we be free to choose?
You've got to watch the series to get your answer.

But we are discussing it here and I don't know anyway to discuss with Milton or a video.

Sorry but them's the facts.
It is a watch then discuss type situation.

It is a bring Milton here or present the specifics. Sorry but watch and disc8uss may work for movies but not for a discussion thread. Don't waste my time with links to videos.

The idea that the goal of life revolves around economics or that what is good for an economy is good for society or an individual is a big part of the problems with the US.
I don't see capitalism as being a problem for the United States. I see many solutions brought about by capitalism.

jar
April 10th, 2014, 12:31 PM
I don't see capitalism as being a problem for the United States. I see many solutions brought about by capitalism.

Perhaps you could provide some examples.

LagNut
April 10th, 2014, 12:55 PM
Fantastic thread.

First, while I agree that the issues you raise are among the worst problems we face, I absolutely don't think it is anywhere near to "too late".

I do love capitalism for the areas where it does work, and I do agree with your list of where it is, as someone put it, " saddling a cow".

I just wish we didn't have to re learn what we learned in the 1890's and 1930's. I'd love the us I grew up with in the 60's, for all its flaws.

jar
April 10th, 2014, 01:24 PM
Fantastic thread.

First, while I agree that the issues you raise are among the worst problems we face, I absolutely don't think it is anywhere near to "too late".

I do love capitalism for the areas where it does work, and I do agree with your list of where it is, as someone put it, " saddling a cow".

I just wish we didn't have to re learn what we learned in the 1890's and 1930's. I'd love the us I grew up with in the 60's, for all its flaws.

The problem is that particularly in the US we do not teach history; for example that the US of the 50s and 60s was an aberration because we had just destroyed much of the manufacturing, communications and transportation as well as the underlying infrastructure of most areas other than North and South America and so the US in particular faced decreased competition from the other industrialized nations as we profited from rebuilding what had been destroyed.

Capitalism is certainly one tool to be used but it is not the answer to every question. Here are three examples of Capitalism from the period of WWII.

http://www.fototime.com/9BBD3045B391113/medium800.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/D34DC872BF5E1B4/medium800.jpg

Note that the date on the lower right coin is 1941.

When we do not teach the errors of the 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, 1930s we cannot expect folk not to repeat the errors.

LagNut
April 10th, 2014, 03:17 PM
Amen, though at least in CA there is a bit of history required to graduate, same as when I grew up (in MT).

Are there states where US, world, and state history are not required?

Granted the quality is another matter. I'm intrigued by the lack of what I would consider basic knowledge in young people I meet at work. At times it is astounding, but again, some of this is just unwillingness to learn though you'd think some of it should at least ring a bell.

On that note, I was aware there was rationing during the war, but I'd never seen metal chits like that before. I'd always heard of coupons. The 41 date is intriguing too. One month into the war and coins(?) are minted...

Are there states without history requirements? I know I was surprised to fond that CA removed its geography requirement for high school.

carlos.q
April 10th, 2014, 03:31 PM
I find this thread fascinating.

jar
April 10th, 2014, 04:10 PM
Amen, though at least in CA there is a bit of history required to graduate, same as when I grew up (in MT).

Are there states where US, world, and state history are not required?

Granted the quality is another matter. I'm intrigued by the lack of what I would consider basic knowledge in young people I meet at work. At times it is astounding, but again, some of this is just unwillingness to learn though you'd think some of it should at least ring a bell.

On that note, I was aware there was rationing during the war, but I'd never seen metal chits like that before. I'd always heard of coupons. The 41 date is intriguing too. One month into the war and coins(?) are minted...

Are there states without history requirements? I know I was surprised to fond that CA removed its geography requirement for high school.

Look closely at the coins.

They are Company Money, good only at the company store and not transferable into cash.

The Mill and Company town period of Capitalism lasted well into the WWII era. People lived in company houses bought from company stores and since they were paid in company money could not set anything aside for reserve, retirement or emergency.

You were of course free to NOT work at the Mill or Mine or Shirt Factory or ...



BUT ...




you then left your house with only the clothes you could take with you and zero savings or cash.

It was True Capitalism and freedom from restrictions or Over-regulation.

jar
April 10th, 2014, 04:13 PM
I find this thread fascinating.

Great.

Why?

carlos.q
April 10th, 2014, 06:24 PM
I find this thread fascinating.

Great.

Why?
Because things are said here that I would never expect on any pen forum, much less the *other* forum.
First of all I agree with your opinion of the great obscenities in the US. And if I may add my two cents: another obscenity is preaching liberty and freedom across the world, while at the same time denying basic self determination to my country for the past 116 years. That is not right.

jar
April 10th, 2014, 06:46 PM
I find this thread fascinating.

Great.

Why?
Because things are said here that I would never expect on any pen forum, much less the *other* forum.
First of all I agree with your opinion of the great obscenities in the US. And if I may add my two cents: another obscenity is preaching liberty and freedom across the world, while at the same time denying basic self determination to my country for the past 116 years. That is not right.

That goes back to the issue of education. The US has a long, long history of expansion through force and occupation but we simply don't present those details to students.

AbE:

The list of lands the US took bt force is pretty extensive; Florida, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, California, Utah, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Montana, North and South Dakota, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Hawaii ...

Hawaii was particularly repugnant since we had sworn not to do so.

LagNut
April 11th, 2014, 08:21 AM
Look closely at the coins.

They are Company Money, good only at the company store and not transferable into cash.

The Mill and Company town period of Capitalism lasted well into the WWII era. People lived in company houses bought from company stores and since they were paid in company money could not set anything aside for reserve, retirement or emergency.

You were of course free to NOT work at the Mill or Mine or Shirt Factory or ...



BUT ...




you then left your house with only the clothes you could take with you and zero savings or cash.

It was True Capitalism and freedom from restrictions or Over-regulation.

I'd obviously never seen "company store" money, through I'd heard of company stores.

I grew up in a city that was a one company town, but of a very different sort - Butte Montana, the Gibraltar of unionism. At least it was till 1979, when the mines closed down completely. Right now, to work in the newly opened mines, you can't be in a union.

Still, I return to my nostalgia for the way things worked when I grew up. We had a good public utility system, which was better than the market system which replaced it in the 90's. The promises of lower cost never panned out, and I watched what a market based gas and electric system turned out to be. We got to learn about rolling blackouts, as we were gamed to take our money. I yearn for the strong and effective PUC which was lost. It will take work to get it back, and we're not close.

I liked the old telephone system, again a regulated utility. What the market has given us is a substandard system compared to Europe, at least as far as I can see. We have a poor infrastructure which will hamper our competitiveness as we go forward.

So, I guess I still long for the system I saw in the 60's, with respect to the markets. There was a lot of lessons built into it that the Voodoo economic years destroyed.

Side note: I'm not going to be able to keep up with a rapid back and forth, but I will do my best. I'm enjoying this immensely.

jar
April 11th, 2014, 08:39 AM
Look closely at the coins.

They are Company Money, good only at the company store and not transferable into cash.

The Mill and Company town period of Capitalism lasted well into the WWII era. People lived in company houses bought from company stores and since they were paid in company money could not set anything aside for reserve, retirement or emergency.

You were of course free to NOT work at the Mill or Mine or Shirt Factory or ...



BUT ...




you then left your house with only the clothes you could take with you and zero savings or cash.

It was True Capitalism and freedom from restrictions or Over-regulation.

I'd obviously never seen "company store" money, through I'd heard of company stores.

I grew up in a city that was a one company town, but of a very different sort - Butte Montana, the Gibraltar of unionism. At least it was till 1979, when the mines closed down completely. Right now, to work in the newly opened mines, you can't be in a union.

Still, I return to my nostalgia for the way things worked when I grew up. We had a good public utility system, which was better than the market system which replaced it in the 90's. The promises of lower cost never panned out, and I watched what a market based gas and electric system turned out to be. We got to learn about rolling blackouts, as we were gamed to take our money. I yearn for the strong and effective PUC which was lost. It will take work to get it back, and we're not close.

I liked the old telephone system, again a regulated utility. What the market has given us is a substandard system compared to Europe, at least as far as I can see. We have a poor infrastructure which will hamper our competitiveness as we go forward.

So, I guess I still long for the system I saw in the 60's, with respect to the markets. There was a lot of lessons built into it that the Voodoo economic years destroyed.

Side note: I'm not going to be able to keep up with a rapid back and forth, but I will do my best. I'm enjoying this immensely.

Let me try to make a few points related to the regulated monopoly utility system that we had.

First, Utilities were guaranteed a return on investment, and so if they wanted to see a larger dollar amount return they had to invest in the infrastructure. The infrastructure, plant, repairs, maintenance and upkeep were all assets.

When we deregulated the utilities, things like maintenance costs, plant, infrastructure moved from the asset side of the ledger to the cost side of the ledger. The way to increase profits was to reduce the costs.

A second point has to do with the average persons retirement. There were tools out there that the average person could look to as pieces of a retirement strategy that would be safe; government bonds and utility stocks, decreasing term life insurance to protect the house and pay off the mortgage if the wage earner died. Sure, utility stocks did not make anyone rich but they were a secure return. They were not a favored investment for the wealth but the new deregulated utilities certainly were. It was only the small guy and the general consumer that suffered.

LagNut
April 11th, 2014, 09:27 AM
I think we are in the same choir.

Really intrigued to see actual company store money. I did think that would have been gone by the 40's.

Also, on your point about investments, and retirements. I knew people who had Montana Power stock as there retirement, which was turned into Q-west stock during deregulation. Not a pretty story, but instructional. Just really sad when it happens to people you know.

Cheers
Mike

LagNut
April 11th, 2014, 09:29 AM
Their, not there! Can't edit old posts from this thing...

jar
April 11th, 2014, 11:35 AM
I think we are in the same choir.

Really intrigued to see actual company store money. I did think that would have been gone by the 40's.

Also, on your point about investments, and retirements. I knew people who had Montana Power stock as there retirement, which was turned into Q-west stock during deregulation. Not a pretty story, but instructional. Just really sad when it happens to people you know.

Cheers
Mike

Yes, people do tend to think things like company money disappeared long, long ago. But often such things are more recent than most think. The Greensboro Massacre happened in 1979 when police stood aside as members of the KKK and American Nazi Party shot six marchers trying to support workers rights, particularly for black industrial workers in North Carolina.

HughC
April 11th, 2014, 11:02 PM
Great Obscenities in the US.... second is that the purpose of the education system should be to train and prepare workers.

hi jar

i keep coming back to this (apologies for the lack of capitals, one hand out of action in a sling and using cap lock a pain), given that all people require an education (to some degree) to function within society be they workers. bosses, politicians or any thing else then the primary purpose of education would be to provide a skill set to function within society. that this also means a skill set to enable a person to be employed then links the primary purpose to work. does this then mean it becomes part of the prime purpose or a by product of the skills needed? the skill set needed at it's simplest level is open to being defined and i'm sure we would all agree on some and not on others. some of the skills i'd call essential are the obvious, reading, writing, maths and at a basic level. i'd add ethics/morals (noting the bias that can occur) as well because the less people that go before the courts the better and a knowledge of how society "works". the concept of education and job opportunities is well ingrained.

the secondary purpose is to expand that skill set, to deliver a 'well rounded" education. that, of course, delivers benefits to the student and the community be it history ( sometimes a biased area!!), music, arts or a foreign language among many. perhaps you need to expand this a bit jar . why does it fail? how does it fail?...given the us system is one i know nothing about. now 'electoral education" , does that mean being able to understand exactly what the policies mean so "informed" choices can be made? rather than the " believe me son, would i tell a lie" that the politicians stuff down our throats knowing full well it's not the real truth!! yes, ours do that too.

regards
hugh

jar
April 12th, 2014, 06:48 AM
Great Obscenities in the US.... second is that the purpose of the education system should be to train and prepare workers.

hi jar

i keep coming back to this (apologies for the lack of capitals, one hand out of action in a sling and using cap lock a pain), given that all people require an education (to some degree) to function within society be they workers. bosses, politicians or any thing else then the primary purpose of education would be to provide a skill set to function within society. that this also means a skill set to enable a person to be employed then links the primary purpose to work. does this then mean it becomes part of the prime purpose or a by product of the skills needed? the skill set needed at it's simplest level is open to being defined and i'm sure we would all agree on some and not on others. some of the skills i'd call essential are the obvious, reading, writing, maths and at a basic level. i'd add ethics/morals (noting the bias that can occur) as well because the less people that go before the courts the better and a knowledge of how society "works". the concept of education and job opportunities is well ingrained.

the secondary purpose is to expand that skill set, to deliver a 'well rounded" education. that, of course, delivers benefits to the student and the community be it history ( sometimes a biased area!!), music, arts or a foreign language among many. perhaps you need to expand this a bit jar . why does it fail? how does it fail?...given the us system is one i know nothing about. now 'electoral education" , does that mean being able to understand exactly what the policies mean so "informed" choices can be made? rather than the " believe me son, would i tell a lie" that the politicians stuff down our throats knowing full well it's not the real truth!! yes, ours do that too.

regards
hugh

While what you present is pretty much the argument for job training as the goal of education I very, very strongly disagree and let me try to explain why.

Slaves, serfs, vassals, indentured servants, peons and other such designations can be taught how to perform tasked needed for jobs. There have been very successful societies based on educating folk to do their jobs. Slaves and serfs worked the fields, wrought the iron, mined ores, manned the ships, built the mansions ...

But the US was founded to be something more, where "Citizens" also ran the government, where bakers and plumbers and publicans and barbers and garbage collectors and firemen and farmers were meant to make the laws and direct the country.

That takes an informed citizenry, citizens that know what has been done in the past and the results of those actions.

If we are to avoid continuing down the path to Oligarchy it is necessary to build informed citizens, ones trained in critical thinking, knowledgeable about history, studied in morality, capable of thinking beyond the immediate short term, the quarter, the year, the term.

We need to refocus the education system towards producing more than just workers but rather informed citizens.

HughC
April 12th, 2014, 05:48 PM
While what you present is pretty much the argument for job training as the goal of education I very, very strongly disagree and let me try to explain why.

Slaves, serfs, vassals, indentured servants, peons and other such designations can be taught how to perform tasked needed for jobs. There have been very successful societies based on educating folk to do their jobs. Slaves and serfs worked the fields, wrought the iron, mined ores, manned the ships, built the mansions ...

But the US was founded to be something more, where "Citizens" also ran the government, where bakers and plumbers and publicans and barbers and garbage collectors and firemen and farmers were meant to make the laws and direct the country.

That takes an informed citizenry, citizens that know what has been done in the past and the results of those actions.

If we are to avoid continuing down the path to Oligarchy it is necessary to build informed citizens, ones trained in critical thinking, knowledgeable about history, studied in morality, capable of thinking beyond the immediate short term, the quarter, the year, the term.

We need to refocus the education system towards producing more than just workers but rather informed citizens.

actually what i said is the better educated the better the outcome. it's not possible to separate education from work, that's just fact. it doesn't mean work is the sole reason for education though. i think our views are not that different. every population has people of differing academic ability so the basic skill set needs be set at a level that meets basic needs, a number of people have no real interest in expanding their skills or becoming more "informed" and the unfortunate truth is society needs people with low expectations to do the undesirable jobs (more the issue there is they also don't pay well) . "democracy" is meant to work as you point out, people vote and everyone has that right so it hasn't "failed" as such and i doubt historically there's been a time when so many have been included in the process of determining who governs ( how they govern is a different matter). that money (and absurd amounts of it) plays such a dominant role is of concern when it comes to politics, that seems to be an area that needs reform. i see little to support your claim that the education system doesn't deliver given that in nearly every field us educated are amongst the worlds best, certainly here in aust. the education system does deliver acceptable results overall. a skill set that includes ".. trained in critical thinking, knowledgeable about history, studied in morality, capable of thinking beyond the immediate short term, the quarter, the year, the term" would benefit everyone, on that i agree.

jar
April 12th, 2014, 06:07 PM
i see little to support your claim that the education system doesn't deliver given that in nearly every field us educated are amongst the worlds best, certainly here in aust.

Not sure what aust is but what support is there that US educated folk are among the world's best?

But I still believe that education to do some job is a serious obscenity and a sure path to failure as a society or nation.


i think our views are not that different. every population has people of differing academic ability so the basic skill set needs be set at a level that meets basic needs, a number of people have no real interest in expanding their skills or becoming more "informed" and the unfortunate truth is society needs people with low expectations to do the undesirable jobs (more the issue there is they also don't pay well) .

But for our society to succeed and not continue our decline into third world status we need informed citizens. We need citizens that want to be informed and understand that they have a duty to be informed. It is not a matter of academic ability, it is a matter of national and societal necessity. We need voters that can understand issues, history, past events and the consequences of those events.

We can't keep making the same stupid errors over and over again.

pengeezer
April 12th, 2014, 06:43 PM
"Not sure what aust is but what support is there that US educated folk are among the world's best?"


What Hugh is referring to("aust") is Austrailia.


John

HughC
April 12th, 2014, 08:00 PM
but what support is there that US educated folk are among the world's best?


what i said was the top end is world class, i don't know how the average compares but as the top is world class i assume the system that produces them is of a reasonable standard.



But I still believe that education to do some job is a serious obscenity and a sure path to failure as a society or nation.


you don't become a doctor, engineer, teacher or plumber without training/education to be one, obscenity? no just reality. expanding education , as i've said , delivers considerable benefits.



But for our society to succeed and not continue our decline into third world status we need informed citizens. We need citizens that want to be informed and understand that they have a duty to be informed.


you need to recognize some just don't care as long as their needs are met. of course they should be "informed" or have that option, if they prefer not to be then that has to be accepted.



It is not a matter of academic ability, it is a matter of national and societal necessity. We need voters that can understand issues, history, past events and the consequences of those events.


so is it the education system and/or the political system that, to you, is failing? ideology is a big driver in how people vote, regardless of education, and that can cause problems when extreme ideology gains mass support ('30's germany being a prime example). the numerous cults that surface often contain well educated people, something i find hard to understand but it happens. i'm not sure the education system is entirely to blame for your concerns, noting that the more private operated schools the more ideological "imprinting" occurs, but in general i agree with your opinion re voters.

HughC
April 13th, 2014, 05:14 AM
while i'm on a roll lets throw another aspect in, media. does the "media" do it's "job" in terms of presenting facts to the population that are of real importance? really who cares if x gets caught in bed with y, how does it help if some minor politician gets caught taking a bribe in the "big picture". maybe the "numero uno" obscenity is the failure of "media" to present facts and opinions on issues that are important. how did the NYT , some 20 blocks from wall street fail in 2007 (earlier would have been helpful...) to notice bear stein, wp morgan and lehman had major balance sheet problems? i wonder if an obsession with "new" news obscures the really important news and the detailed analysis that needs to go with it to allow people to make " informed" decisions. maybe it's more a matter of finding the real cause of why voters aren't informed, maybe no one ( the media) informs them and presents a variety of analysis/opinions to allow "informed" opinions to be made.

jar
April 13th, 2014, 06:46 AM
what i said was the top end is world class, i don't know how the average compares but as the top is world class i assume the system that produces them is of a reasonable standard.



But I still believe that education to do some job is a serious obscenity and a sure path to failure as a society or nation.


you don't become a doctor, engineer, teacher or plumber without training/education to be one, obscenity? no just reality. expanding education , as i've said , delivers considerable benefits.



But for our society to succeed and not continue our decline into third world status we need informed citizens. We need citizens that want to be informed and understand that they have a duty to be informed.


you need to recognize some just don't care as long as their needs are met. of course they should be "informed" or have that option, if they prefer not to be then that has to be accepted.



It is not a matter of academic ability, it is a matter of national and societal necessity. We need voters that can understand issues, history, past events and the consequences of those events.


so is it the education system and/or the political system that, to you, is failing? ideology is a big driver in how people vote, regardless of education, and that can cause problems when extreme ideology gains mass support ('30's germany being a prime example). the numerous cults that surface often contain well educated people, something i find hard to understand but it happens. i'm not sure the education system is entirely to blame for your concerns, noting that the more private operated schools the more ideological "imprinting" occurs, but in general i agree with your opinion re voters.

Citizenship provides benefits but should also carry duties and responsibilities. One is to be an informed citizen. It is not a matter of whether or not someone wants to be informed or if they just don't care, it is their duty and responsibility to be informed.

Slaves can be taught to be doctors or lawyers and we do. But we do not teach citizens how to be citizens.


while i'm on a roll lets throw another aspect in, media. does the "media" do it's "job" in terms of presenting facts to the population that are of real importance? really who cares if x gets caught in bed with y, how does it help if some minor politician gets caught taking a bribe in the "big picture". maybe the "numero uno" obscenity is the failure of "media" to present facts and opinions on issues that are important. how did the NYT , some 20 blocks from wall street fail in 2007 (earlier would have been helpful...) to notice bear stein, wp morgan and lehman had major balance sheet problems? i wonder if an obsession with "new" news obscures the really important news and the detailed analysis that needs to go with it to allow people to make " informed" decisions. maybe it's more a matter of finding the real cause of why voters aren't informed, maybe no one ( the media) informs them and presents a variety of analysis/opinions to allow "informed" opinions to be made.

That is another great example of how deadly failing to educate citizens really is. We decided to destroy the concept of news and reporting. It was a decision made by citizens to replace news and reporting with entertainment.

In the US we used to have limits on how many media outlets could be owned by a single corporation or individual; we had a "Chinese Wall" between news reporting/editorial and advertising; we had "equal time" requirements and editorial comments had to be clearly marked as such.

Citizens supported repealing all those regulations.

HughC
April 13th, 2014, 05:38 PM
Citizenship provides benefits but should also carry duties and responsibilities. One is to be an informed citizen. It is not a matter of whether or not someone wants to be informed or if they just don't care, it is their duty and responsibility to be informed.


Duties and responsibilities are defined by laws. Democracy in the US allows you participate in the political process if you choose to, here in Australia voting is compulsory so you participate regardless of personal choice.




while i'm on a roll lets throw another aspect in, media. does the "media" do it's "job" in terms of presenting facts to the population that are of real importance? really who cares if x gets caught in bed with y, how does it help if some minor politician gets caught taking a bribe in the "big picture". maybe the "numero uno" obscenity is the failure of "media" to present facts and opinions on issues that are important. how did the NYT , some 20 blocks from wall street fail in 2007 (earlier would have been helpful...) to notice bear stein, wp morgan and lehman had major balance sheet problems? i wonder if an obsession with "new" news obscures the really important news and the detailed analysis that needs to go with it to allow people to make " informed" decisions. maybe it's more a matter of finding the real cause of why voters aren't informed, maybe no one ( the media) informs them and presents a variety of analysis/opinions to allow "informed" opinions to be made.

That is another great example of how deadly failing to educate citizens really is.


No it's not. To be "informed" you have to have information and have it presented in manner that allows an opinion to be formed. Highly educated people still need to be have information presented to them.


It was a decision made by citizens to replace news and reporting with entertainment.

In the US we used to have limits on how many media outlets could be owned by a single corporation or individual; we had a "Chinese Wall" between news reporting/editorial and advertising; we had "equal time" requirements and editorial comments had to be clearly marked as such.

Citizens supported repealing all those regulations.

Democracy in action, maybe not a good example though.

I think education is just part of the issues we've discussed, l agree better education is beneficial but I don't believe it will solve all the problems you mention. Presenting information to the people involves media, governments , industry/business, analysts, academics and so on. Given education standards are ( a lot) higher than 100yrs ago and open to all your argument that education leads to a better "informed" society seems to conflict with your position that people are now less "informed", if people are less "informed" maybe other factors need to be looked at.

jar
April 13th, 2014, 06:12 PM
Duties and responsibilities are defined by laws. Democracy in the US allows you participate in the political process if you choose to, here in Australia voting is compulsory so you participate regardless of personal choice.




while i'm on a roll lets throw another aspect in, media. does the "media" do it's "job" in terms of presenting facts to the population that are of real importance? really who cares if x gets caught in bed with y, how does it help if some minor politician gets caught taking a bribe in the "big picture". maybe the "numero uno" obscenity is the failure of "media" to present facts and opinions on issues that are important. how did the NYT , some 20 blocks from wall street fail in 2007 (earlier would have been helpful...) to notice bear stein, wp morgan and lehman had major balance sheet problems? i wonder if an obsession with "new" news obscures the really important news and the detailed analysis that needs to go with it to allow people to make " informed" decisions. maybe it's more a matter of finding the real cause of why voters aren't informed, maybe no one ( the media) informs them and presents a variety of analysis/opinions to allow "informed" opinions to be made.

That is another great example of how deadly failing to educate citizens really is.


No it's not. To be "informed" you have to have information and have it presented in manner that allows an opinion to be formed. Highly educated people still need to be have information presented to them.


It was a decision made by citizens to replace news and reporting with entertainment.

In the US we used to have limits on how many media outlets could be owned by a single corporation or individual; we had a "Chinese Wall" between news reporting/editorial and advertising; we had "equal time" requirements and editorial comments had to be clearly marked as such.

Citizens supported repealing all those regulations.

Democracy in action, maybe not a good example though.

I think education is just part of the issues we've discussed, l agree better education is beneficial but I don't believe it will solve all the problems you mention. Presenting information to the people involves media, governments , industry/business, analysts, academics and so on. Given education standards are ( a lot) higher than 100yrs ago and open to all your argument that education leads to a better "informed" society seems to conflict with your position that people are now less "informed", if people are less "informed" maybe other factors need to be looked at.

I think the idea that "Duties and responsibilities are defined by laws. " is another obscenity and absurdity. Duties and responsibilities need to go far beyond just laws. The idea that laws are what define such things misses the whole point of morality and personal integrity. Laws are examples of when morality and integrity have failed. In fact every law is an indicator of cultural failure.

I have never claimed that education would solve any problems, what I am claiming without teaching how to be a citizen and the duties and responsibilities of citizenship we cannot hope to solve any of the problems. If we are going to try to remain a democratic republic as opposed to an fascist oligarchy then we will need an informed citizenry.

Nor have I seen any evidence or indication that education standards are any higher or even as high as they were 100 years ago.

HughC
April 13th, 2014, 07:48 PM
I think the idea that "Duties and responsibilities are defined by laws. " is another obscenity and absurdity. Duties and responsibilities need to go far beyond just laws. The idea that laws are what define such things misses the whole point of morality and personal integrity. Laws are examples of when morality and integrity have failed. In fact every law is an indicator of cultural failure.


Every society for thousands of years has used laws/constitutions to define acceptable behaviour, rights, duties and responsibilities ie the basic framework . If duties and responsibilities go beyond. well and good but laws define acceptable behaviour and, as such, reflect (or should) the moral and ethical desires of the society. Laws are not indicators of "cultural failure" but rather an indicator of a society defining it's values.




I'm not sure this comes across as you meant, it seems to contradict itself. I agree that teaching how to be a citizen and the duties and responsibilities of citizenship should be part of the skill set that education should provide.

[QUOTE=jar;75283]
Nor have I seen any evidence or indication that education standards are any higher or even as high as they were 100 years ago.

The percentage of those receiving an education today is far greater than 100yrs ago, this alone increases the average standard of education across the US ( and Australia) as well the average time spent in being educated has increased, this has led to better educated and trained teachers, to say these facts haven't increased the education standards is wrong.

pengeezer
April 13th, 2014, 08:21 PM
Every society for thousands of years has used laws/constitutions to define acceptable behaviour, rights, duties and responsibilities ie the basic framework . If duties and responsibilities go beyond. well and good but laws define acceptable behaviour and, as such, reflect (or should) the moral and ethical desires of the society. Laws are not indicators of "cultural failure" but rather an indicator of a society defining it's values.

[QUOTE=jar;75283

I have never claimed that education would solve any problems, what I am claiming without teaching how to be a citizen and the duties and responsibilities of citizenship we cannot hope to solve any of the problems.

I'm not sure this comes across as you meant, it seems to contradict itself. I agree that teaching how to be a citizen and the duties and responsibilities of citizenship should be part of the skill set that education should provide.



Nor have I seen any evidence or indication that education standards are any higher or even as high as they were 100 years ago.

The percentage of those receiving an education today is far greater than 100yrs ago, this alone increases the average standard of education across the US ( and Australia) as well the average time spent in being educated has increased, this has led to better educated and trained teachers, to say these facts haven't increased the education standards is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the quantity of education has increased for everyone in the past century,but the quality--at
least in the US--has decreased. Some of the subjects that a student from a one-room schoolhouse needed to know
would put most US college students to shame today.


John

HughC
April 13th, 2014, 11:51 PM
Perhaps the quantity of education has increased for everyone in the past century,but the quality--at
least in the US--has decreased. Some of the subjects that a student from a one-room schoolhouse needed to know
would put most US college students to shame today.


Hi John,

This from the Yale site

Century of Difference (http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/INAUGURAL%20PAPERS/MICHAEL%20HOUT%20INAUGURAL.pdf)

indicates that this notion is false. The US is a vastly better educated society now than 100 yrs ago.

Regards
Hugh

jar
April 14th, 2014, 06:22 AM
Every society for thousands of years has used laws/constitutions to define acceptable behaviour, rights, duties and responsibilities ie the basic framework . If duties and responsibilities go beyond. well and good but laws define acceptable behaviour and, as such, reflect (or should) the moral and ethical desires of the society. Laws are not indicators of "cultural failure" but rather an indicator of a society defining it's values.

I agrre that societies use laws to define acceptable behaviour but strongly disagree that that is not a clear indication of moral failure in that culture and society. Laws are enacted to try to force compliance to some standard and can be moral or immoral. I addition, a truly moral culture or society would not need laws.

Laws are not intrinsically either moral or ethical.






I have never claimed that education would solve any problems, what I am claiming without teaching how to be a citizen and the duties and responsibilities of citizenship we cannot hope to solve any of the problems.


I'm not sure this comes across as you meant, it seems to contradict itself. I agree that teaching how to be a citizen and the duties and responsibilities of citizenship should be part of the skill set that education should provide.

Where is there any contradiction? Can a doctor become a good doctor without education as a doctor? Can a mechanic be a good mechanic without learning mechanics?

Why should we expect citizens to be proficient citizens with learning how to be citizens?

Why should we look for a moral and ethical society without teach citizens how to be moral and ethical?

If we do not educate citizens about what happened in the past and what were the consequences of those events can we expect today's citizens to not repeat past errors?


The percentage of those receiving an education today is far greater than 100yrs ago, this alone increases the average standard of education across the US ( and Australia) as well the average time spent in being educated has increased, this has led to better educated and trained teachers, to say these facts haven't increased the education standards is wrong.

Remember, I was around three quarters of a century ago and my parents and grandparents were around far more than 100 years ago. What evidence do you have that supports your assertion? Are you conflating formal schooling with education? Do you have evidence that the average time spent in being educated is increasing? Do you have actual evidence that people today are better educated?

We are talking about the US here and honestly, folk in the US seem on the whole to be totally uneducated except in the very narrow area of training for a specific job and not at all for being citizens. When compared to other nations the US is usually in the middle of the pack at best and never at the top in any area.

Here is an excerpt from one report (http://www.greatschools.org/students/academic-skills/1075-u-s-students-compare.gs) and there are many more example.



The United States may be a superpower but in education we lag behind. In a recent comparison of academic performance in 57 countries, students in Finland came out on top overall. Finnish 15-year-olds did the best in science and came in second in math. Other top-performing countries were: Hong Kong, Canada, Taiwan, Estonia, Japan and Korea.
How did the U.S. do? Students in the United States performed near the middle of the pack. On average 16 other industrialized countries scored above the United States in science, and 23 scored above us in math. The reading scores for the United States had to be tossed due to a printing error.


Experts noted that the United States' scores remained about the same in math between 2003 and 2006, the two most recent years the test — the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) — was given. Meanwhile, many other nations, Estonia and Poland being two, improved their scores and moved past the U.S.
Researchers also made note of the fact that while the United States has one of the biggest gaps between high- and low-performing students in an industrialized nation, Finland has one of the smallest. Students in Finland perform remarkably well, regardless of the school they attend.

Note that even here the capability for critical thinking or ethics or morality or any of the tools needed to be a citizen are not even tested.

LagNut
April 14th, 2014, 09:43 AM
As I see this back and forth, I'm wondering if some of the misunderstanding is our different countries. I recognize what jar is on about because I learned it also, in school. These are part of what I would have pointed to as the things the US did different, especially earlier in it's history.

However, I am nearly the definition of parochial. I'm just now in my fifties looking forward to being able to travel. I have been differences between what we learn here, and what others learn, strangely enough for this thread as a positive for US education, at least 35 years ago.

I have always assumed that UK(and I'm meaning pretty much the entire empire, including Australia - please correct me if my terminology is wrong) received the same. But maybe not. So, did you learn that one of the pillars of your democracy was an educated citizenry? In the first 12 years of school, the compulsory portion?

If this was a central tenet( along with a free press, and now I'm about to go down our bill of rights, which I'm assuming were not covered as nearly democratic gospel - yep, I'm parochial!) OK was the education portion explained as so central to a functioning democracy?

Also, we really messed up the broadcasting framework we had also, yours we🔛

LagNut
April 14th, 2014, 09:45 AM
Seems more intact. (Sorry for the goof at the end of the last post).

I'll end here...

Cheers
Mike

pajaro
April 14th, 2014, 04:10 PM
Too many extreme viewpoints. The extreme views are ridiculous. In the 1990s it seems the practice of greed was enshrined such that it wasn't even veiled any more, but right in your face. I blame the Republican Party for this. Typical of this was trashing the president over an affair just for obvious political advantage. Obvious to any and all, and no attempt to mask the intent at all. After this, anything went.

HughC
April 14th, 2014, 05:00 PM
I agrre that societies use laws to define acceptable behaviour but strongly disagree that that is not a clear indication of moral failure in that culture and society. Laws are enacted to try to force compliance to some standard and can be moral or immoral. I addition, a truly moral culture or society would not need laws.

Laws are not intrinsically either moral or ethical.


I should mention when I say "law" I mean it in the larger sense that includes constitutions and like. The "perfect" society has never existed, never will ( or seems unlikely) and immoral and unethical behaviour has existed since society began, it never failed because it it's never existed. Even Christianity is based on 10 laws fundamental to being a christian.



Where is there any contradiction? Can a doctor become a good doctor without education as a doctor? Can a mechanic be a good mechanic without learning mechanics?
Why should we expect citizens to be proficient citizens with learning how to be citizens?
Why should we look for a moral and ethical society without teach citizens how to be moral and ethical?
If we do not educate citizens about what happened in the past and what were the consequences of those events can we expect today's citizens to not repeat past errors?


I've already provided you with my views on most of those points, as I said our views aren't all that different.



you don't become a doctor, engineer, teacher or plumber without training/education to be one, obscenity? no just reality. expanding education , as i've said , delivers considerable benefits.



. some of the skills i'd call essential are the obvious, reading, writing, maths and at a basic level. i'd add ethics/morals (noting the bias that can occur) as well because the less people that go before the courts the better and a knowledge of how society "works"



What evidence do you have that supports your assertion? Are you conflating formal schooling with education? Do you have evidence that the average time spent in being educated is increasing? Do you have actual evidence that people today are better educated?


It's a long read but appears to be reputable, from the Yale site




Century of Difference (http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/INAUGURAL%20PAPERS/MICHAEL%20HOUT%20INAUGURAL.pdf)





We are talking about the US here and honestly, folk in the US seem on the whole to be totally uneducated except in the very narrow area of training for a specific job and not at all for being citizens. When compared to other nations the US is usually in the middle of the pack at best and never at the top in any area.


We're going the same way, I sometimes wonder if the broadness and scope of our education system means some areas suffer so comparisons don't always show the whole picture. We attract a lot of Asian students, I commented to an old Japanese Uni lecturer friend that "Asian students perform so well", his reply "Asian student !! sit at front, listen,attend every lecture,take notes, come exam Asian student come top, wonderful students but oh.... so boring... I hate them". I've always remembered that !! and found his comment at odds with my perception of Asian students. More to education than results in his opinion.

pengeezer
April 14th, 2014, 05:43 PM
Perhaps the quantity of education has increased for everyone in the past century,but the quality--at
least in the US--has decreased. Some of the subjects that a student from a one-room schoolhouse needed to know
would put most US college students to shame today.


Hi John,

This from the Yale site

Century of Difference (http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/INAUGURAL%20PAPERS/MICHAEL%20HOUT%20INAUGURAL.pdf)

indicates that this notion is false. The US is a vastly better educated society now than 100 yrs ago.

Regards
Hugh

On this,Hugh,we'll have to agree to disagree. The content of the Yale-inspired book seems to point to
a greater amount of Americans getting an education then-to-now as opposed to the amount of subjects
learned then and some done away with in recent decades. An obvious subject is the lack of teaching cur-
sive here in America,a subject that has been debated here and in the other fp forum. Why would we bring it
up if we didn't find articles about the matter? I'm not sure about how it is in Austrailia,but with respect to
education here on this side of the pond "Dumb & Dumber" isn't just a movie title--it's what's seen lacking in
our education system here.

While more folks in the 20th century were able to get an education,it doesn't mean that the amount of sub-
jects taught remained the same.


John

HughC
April 15th, 2014, 05:08 AM
As I see this back and forth, I'm wondering if some of the misunderstanding is our different countries. I recognize what jar is on about because I learned it also, in school. These are part of what I would have pointed to as the things the US did different, especially earlier in it's history.

However, I am nearly the definition of parochial. I'm just now in my fifties looking forward to being able to travel. I have been differences between what we learn here, and what others learn, strangely enough for this thread as a positive for US education, at least 35 years ago.

I have always assumed that UK(and I'm meaning pretty much the entire empire, including Australia - please correct me if my terminology is wrong) received the same. But maybe not. So, did you learn that one of the pillars of your democracy was an educated citizenry? In the first 12 years of school, the compulsory portion?

If this was a central tenet( along with a free press, and now I'm about to go down our bill of rights, which I'm assuming were not covered as nearly democratic gospel - yep, I'm parochial!) OK was the education portion explained as so central to a functioning democracy?

Also, we really messed up the broadcasting framework we had also, yours we🔛

In simple terms, no, education and democracy didn't seem to be linked. Nor was the first 12 yrs compulsorily, only till 15yrs of age. Nor was the UK system connected to the Australian system, each state operated it's own system as well which meant very different standards in certain areas across the country. Really a fairly narrow education with the basics being dominant. A much broader range now and as a result the basics suffer but overall children have access to so much more.

I don't think my opinions vary much from Jar's in reality, it's more a matter of where the standard is set.

HughC
April 15th, 2014, 05:26 AM
Perhaps the quantity of education has increased for everyone in the past century,but the quality--at
least in the US--has decreased. Some of the subjects that a student from a one-room schoolhouse needed to know
would put most US college students to shame today.


Hi John,

This from the Yale site

Century of Difference (http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/INAUGURAL%20PAPERS/MICHAEL%20HOUT%20INAUGURAL.pdf)

indicates that this notion is false. The US is a vastly better educated society now than 100 yrs ago.

Regards
Hugh

On this,Hugh,we'll have to agree to disagree. The content of the Yale-inspired book seems to point to
a greater amount of Americans getting an education then-to-now as opposed to the amount of subjects
learned then and some done away with in recent decades. An obvious subject is the lack of teaching cur-
sive here in America,a subject that has been debated here and in the other fp forum. Why would we bring it
up if we didn't find articles about the matter? I'm not sure about how it is in Austrailia,but with respect to
education here on this side of the pond "Dumb & Dumber" isn't just a movie title--it's what's seen lacking in
our education system here.

While more folks in the 20th century were able to get an education,it doesn't mean that the amount of sub-
jects taught remained the same.


John

Well the figures are pretty clear John, having a maths background (pure maths) the stats talk for me. Interestingly the most brilliant mathematician I encountered was American ( also the strangest !! Dr Tom Donaldson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_K._Donaldson) ) and of course education in the US has to be enhanced by old friend Prof. Gillian Banfield now at Berkely (http://geomicrobiology.berkeley.edu/).

Regards
Hugh

jar
April 15th, 2014, 05:48 AM
It's a long read but appears to be reputable, from the Yale site




Century of Difference (http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/INAUGURAL%20PAPERS/MICHAEL%20HOUT%20INAUGURAL.pdf)





That Yale study makes the mistake (common among folk in academia) that education means formal education in a school setting. Schools do play a part in certification but even there in the US that function is being perverted. There is a trend in the US not touched on or even mentioned in the study of 'avoidance schools'; schools that are deliberately designed and created to avoid exposing students to whole areas of knowledge. In the US today the number of 'avoidance schools' is far greater than the number of public schools. The trend continues into higher education but with far fewer 'avoidance colleges and universities'. There are even 'avoidance accreditation boards'.

The number of bodies sitting in a class for a number of years says absolutely nothing about education.

In addition, the trend in the US in public per-college education is towards ever increasing housing project schools; that the more students you can squeeze into a facility the better.

HughC
April 15th, 2014, 09:27 PM
That Yale study makes the mistake (common among folk in academia) that education means formal education in a school setting. Schools do play a part in certification but even there in the US that function is being perverted. There is a trend in the US not touched on or even mentioned in the study of 'avoidance schools'; schools that are deliberately designed and created to avoid exposing students to whole areas of knowledge. In the US today the number of 'avoidance schools' is far greater than the number of public schools. The trend continues into higher education but with far fewer 'avoidance colleges and universities'. There are even 'avoidance accreditation boards'.

The number of bodies sitting in a class for a number of years says absolutely nothing about education.

In addition, the trend in the US in public per-college education is towards ever increasing housing project schools; that the more students you can squeeze into a facility the better.

Education, of course, encompasses more than "formal" education still the Yale paper was only looking at that aspect, perhaps no mistake just outside the scope of the study. There is no doubt the standard of the education has risen within the US population, whether that standard has delivered what you think it should have is a different matter and spending more time at school, at the very least, indicates a greater commitment to education regardless of the outcome.

I think the move to non secular and non government schools is definitely a looming issue in terms of the ideology sometimes involved. To a degree this is overcome in Australia by a final exam that all students must sit that determines their entry to university and regardless a set curriculum must be followed although this still delivers a wide choice of subjects.

jar
April 16th, 2014, 07:14 AM
There is no doubt the standard of the education has risen within the US population, whether that standard has delivered what you think it should have is a different matter and spending more time at school, at the very least, indicates a greater commitment to education regardless of the outcome.

But again you repeat the claim that the standard of education has risen without providing any evidence in support of that assertion when study after study shows US students performing poorly in EVERY area tested. Spending more time at school does not indicate anything more than lip service, certainly no commitment to education.

Remember that in the US there is no National Curricula, no National tests. And every independent test comparing US and other nations reflects poorly on the US.

How can we maintain a Democratic Republic instead of a Fascist Oligarchy when the citizens are not educated and informed?

pengeezer
April 16th, 2014, 02:59 PM
That Yale study makes the mistake (common among folk in academia) that education means formal education in a school setting. Schools do play a part in certification but even there in the US that function is being perverted. There is a trend in the US not touched on or even mentioned in the study of 'avoidance schools'; schools that are deliberately designed and created to avoid exposing students to whole areas of knowledge. In the US today the number of 'avoidance schools' is far greater than the number of public schools. The trend continues into higher education but with far fewer 'avoidance colleges and universities'. There are even 'avoidance accreditation boards'.

The number of bodies sitting in a class for a number of years says absolutely nothing about education.

In addition, the trend in the US in public per-college education is towards ever increasing housing project schools; that the more students you can squeeze into a facility the better.

Education, of course, encompasses more than "formal" education still the Yale paper was only looking at that aspect, perhaps no mistake just outside the scope of the study. There is no doubt the standard of the education has risen within the US population, whether that standard has delivered what you think it should have is a different matter and spending more time at school, at the very least, indicates a greater commitment to education regardless of the outcome.

I think the move to non secular and non government schools is definitely a looming issue in terms of the ideology sometimes involved. To a degree this is overcome in Australia by a final exam that all students must sit that determines their entry to university and regardless a set curriculum must be followed although this still delivers a wide choice of subjects.

I agree with the idea of a National test to determine whether a student is able to enter university. Unfortunately,
as jar has said,there isn't a national test here in the US to determine a student's ability to go to college. The
determining factor is whether or not the student can pay. The universities are more concerned with money
that a student's academic capability.


John

HughC
April 16th, 2014, 04:20 PM
There is no doubt the standard of the education has risen within the US population, whether that standard has delivered what you think it should have is a different matter and spending more time at school, at the very least, indicates a greater commitment to education regardless of the outcome.

But again you repeat the claim that the standard of education has risen without providing any evidence in support of that assertion when study after study shows US students performing poorly in EVERY area tested. Spending more time at school does not indicate anything more than lip service, certainly no commitment to education.

Remember that in the US there is no National Curricula, no National tests. And every independent test comparing US and other nations reflects poorly on the US.

How can we maintain a Democratic Republic instead of a Fascist Oligarchy when the citizens are not educated and informed?

I have provided information to support that claim. It shows an increased level of achievement and an increase in the percentage of people obtaining more education. It's you who need to demonstrate that doubling the amount of schooling and high school/ collage graduation rates going from 20% to 80% failed to increase the overall education level within the population. There's also : 120 Years of American Education. A Statistical Portrait (http://www.thebrokenwindow.net/papers/9/93442.pdf)....if you want to read something really boring.

There is no doubt education standards have risen imo, it appears to me that they don't produce the results you would like them to produce and that's the issue you have with education. Given we both seem to agree on what should be taught, in a general sense, it appears to me this line of debate has reached the end where we'll just have to disagree on this point !! It's been an interesting topic and I've enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Now I'd better go back to the OP and see what else needs further discussion...

Ernst Bitterman
April 16th, 2014, 04:57 PM
I wish I'd spotted this thread a little earlier, before it started to get so specific. I'll start with what I began typing before I noticed there were two more pages, and then try to catch up.

Something that has troubled me since the fall of Communism (or at least the fall of Leninist/Stalinist inflected Marxism, which doesn't appear to be quite the same thing) is that people have pointed to the event and shouted, "Ah, there. Capitalism wins!" It's always struck me as very much like watching a couple of giant monsters fighting in your city, and rejoicing because Godzilla won; yes, the other option was bad, but is this one so much better?

I agree that education is important in the making of functional citizens, but the sort of education is important too. I'm coming at this, by the way, as one who trained to be a Social Studies teacher-- you can only have a good, functional democratic system if the the citizens are (1) educated in the history of their nation (ideally with reference to that nation's place in a larger global context), (2) educated in the way in which the national government works, and (3) trained to use their thinkers in a critical manner. (2) and (3) are clearly lacking in the current situation, because there's no other way to explain the popularity of the Everyone For Himself philosophy and affiliated shifting to the right that seems to be affecting almost every western nation, and which are certainly running rampant in North America. Since most discussions in the area of education of late focus on standardized testing (not a great encourager of critical thinking) and loading the kids with marketable skills, I think a comparison of whether the modern person is more or less educated than a century-old counterpart is moot; the SORT of education needed for the matter under consideration isn't even on the table in that discussion.

What we also seem to need, at least in North America, is some sort of properly representative system. Canada's "first past the post" and the US's "me or him" both seem to produce ridiculous results (up here, 40% of the votes cast produces an irresistible majority of seats in the legislature; not quite right), and the whole idea of corporations = people and $ = free speech seriously need addressing if there's any point to the notion of "one person, one vote".

I grew up in a province with a long tradition of low-wattage socialism; government-held corporations still hold car insurance and telephone service, and they're still very cheap here. I don't understand the idea of paying to see a doctor if you're sick. There's nothing WRONG with the government sticking its nose in, if the point is to do good for the greatest number and the means is carefully considered.

So I agree with everything Jar said at the top of the thread.

HughC
April 16th, 2014, 09:15 PM
And just when I thought this tread was starting to die....new blood !!

LagNut
April 16th, 2014, 09:31 PM
Hughc

LagNut
April 16th, 2014, 09:37 PM
HughC

Thanks for your reply. I do recall the public education system being discussed as being an essential part of our system, and part of the innovation that was the US.

I am enjoying your boring links, they're anything but...

Mike

LagNut
April 16th, 2014, 09:45 PM
Ernst,

I'm jazzed to see you here. Why am I not surprised you taught?

The US I grew up in would be considered positively communist today, by the rhetoric put out by our loudest gasbags.

Mike

HughC
April 17th, 2014, 05:25 AM
I wish I'd spotted this thread a little earlier

Better late than never!!


(1) educated in the history of their nation (ideally with reference to that nation's place in a larger global context)

I think I understand the position you and Jar are coming from with this, I personally hold the same view as to relevance. But the concept of "history" , who writes it and who it represents does make the concept of "one definitive history" difficult to both maintain and to retain relevance. Winners write history, Australian history is an example of this and the real history somewhat different to my school teachings which was white Australian history and relevant to me. I suspect North American history suffers the same bias. Every ethnic ( and religious) group brings it's own history, as those groups increase so does the collective groups of "histories". As a country changes so does the role of history, the relevance of American history to someone with 200 or 300 yrs relationship ( 1 or 2 thousand yrs) is vastly different from someone who arrived 10 yrs ago. Here the statistic recently rolled out indicted 30% of people in Australian residents where born somewhere else ( I haven't verified if this was correct), I wonder if a few boats full of convicts arriving in Sydney in 1787 interests them at all (first European settlement). This is the issue "history" faces, as society evolves it generates it's own history and, with ethnic /religious diversity, it does question the relevance of mainstream history to a number of citizens. Here it's often said that those that choose to move to Australia should " embrace our customs , values and language" ( who would disagree with that) yet it fails to happen in a lot of cases and will increase in the future regardless. So does "history" (as you would probably call mainstream) really hold such relevance into the future if ethnic diversity continues to increase? Or should "history" change to meet this cultural diversity? It's perhaps a more complicated issue than it initially appears.

Farmboy
April 17th, 2014, 06:55 AM
Amen, though at least in CA there is a bit of history required to graduate, same as when I grew up (in MT).

Are there states where US, world, and state history are not required?

Granted the quality is another matter. I'm intrigued by the lack of what I would consider basic knowledge in young people I meet at work. At times it is astounding, but again, some of this is just unwillingness to learn though you'd think some of it should at least ring a bell.

On that note, I was aware there was rationing during the war, but I'd never seen metal chits like that before. I'd always heard of coupons. The 41 date is intriguing too. One month into the war and coins(?) are minted...

Are there states without history requirements? I know I was surprised to fond that CA removed its geography requirement for high school.
December 7, 1941 a date which will live in infamy...

Likely minted well before the US became "involved".

My father collected trade tokens. I still find them interesting.

jar
April 17th, 2014, 07:04 AM
Amen, though at least in CA there is a bit of history required to graduate, same as when I grew up (in MT).

Are there states where US, world, and state history are not required?

Granted the quality is another matter. I'm intrigued by the lack of what I would consider basic knowledge in young people I meet at work. At times it is astounding, but again, some of this is just unwillingness to learn though you'd think some of it should at least ring a bell.

On that note, I was aware there was rationing during the war, but I'd never seen metal chits like that before. I'd always heard of coupons. The 41 date is intriguing too. One month into the war and coins(?) are minted...

Are there states without history requirements? I know I was surprised to fond that CA removed its geography requirement for high school.
December 7, 1941 a date which will live in infamy...

Likely minted well before the US became "involved".

My father collected trade tokens. I still find them interesting.

These are not just tokens, they were how people were paid, their only income.

Farmboy
April 17th, 2014, 08:01 AM
Amen, though at least in CA there is a bit of history required to graduate, same as when I grew up (in MT).

Are there states where US, world, and state history are not required?

Granted the quality is another matter. I'm intrigued by the lack of what I would consider basic knowledge in young people I meet at work. At times it is astounding, but again, some of this is just unwillingness to learn though you'd think some of it should at least ring a bell.

On that note, I was aware there was rationing during the war, but I'd never seen metal chits like that before. I'd always heard of coupons. The 41 date is intriguing too. One month into the war and coins(?) are minted...

Are there states without history requirements? I know I was surprised to fond that CA removed its geography requirement for high school.
December 7, 1941 a date which will live in infamy...

Likely minted well before the US became "involved".

My father collected trade tokens. I still find them interesting.

These are not just tokens, they were how people were paid, their only income.
I am aware of what they are and how they were used.

LagNut
April 18th, 2014, 09:09 AM
Farmboy,

I had heard of company towns, but I never knew they effectively minted their own money. I'd always imagined it would be accounts at the computer store, probably from the Johnny Cash song.

I also would have thought it pretty much mining, not mills. When I was learning this, it remained pretty abstract.

That said, there is more to these historical anachronisms than seems there at first blush. One of my grandparents made it here effectively as an indentured servant. His choices at that time were such that it was an opportunity that he was very happy for, and it certainly made his, my grandmother's and my mother's life much better. It is probable that it saved his life.

I think it is important to keep in mind these flip sides when looking at the past.

Sorry, got a bit off topic, but I wanted to welcome you here.

Cheers
Mike

Ernst Bitterman
April 18th, 2014, 10:17 AM
(1) educated in the history of their nation (ideally with reference to that nation's place in a larger global context)

I think I understand the position you and Jar are coming from with this, I personally hold the same view as to relevance. But the concept of "history" , who writes it and who it represents does make the concept of "one definitive history" difficult.... So does "history" (as you would probably call mainstream) really hold such relevance into the future if ethnic diversity continues to increase? Or should "history" change to meet this cultural diversity? It's perhaps a more complicated issue than it initially appears.

Oh, absolutely. I think colonial nations like ours have a pretty tough row to hoe in presenting national history in a useful and honest way, but the central thing is to avoid falling into chest-thumping (We won the War Of The Bent Spoon!), reciting interesting accomplishments (Thomas Erzah Nerks invented the butter-thruster!) or both. The utility of history is in pointing out both smart actions and disastrous mistakes, which can be lumped into a "How did we get into this mess?" bucket. I put more of a premium on the critical thinking aspect of what I said above, but without knowing the context the thinking might not grind out the right conclusions.

Flounder
April 18th, 2014, 10:40 AM
I've yet to wade through all of it, and the conclusion possibly comes as no surprise to many: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

I remember when the champagne socialist set and their media organs were clamouring for the equality of proportional representation week in week out... until New Labour took power, since when the moral issue was dropped. Cynicism and big money are the orders of the day.

Socialism over here in the UK has never been in a worse state. Who does Labour represent nowadays, but themselves (literally themselves; I see B. Liar's spawn is sniffing round a safe seat (http://leftunity.org/euan-blair-will-face-left-challenge/))?

edit - hmm, this was supposed to be in reply to one of Ernst's posts earlier, but the forum's logout bug seems to have wierded something up.

HughC
April 19th, 2014, 05:32 AM
I came across this, given education and it's standard have featured thought it might interest:

You've won a free ticket to see an Eric Clapton concert (which has no resale value). Bob Dylan is performing on the same night and is your next-best alternative activity. Tickets to see Dylan cost $40. On any given day, you'd be willing to pay up to $50 to see Dylan. Assume there are no other costs of seeing either performer.

So what is the ''opportunity cost'' of seeing Clapton? Is it $0, $10, $40 or $50?

When two economists at Georgia State University, Paul Ferraro and Laura Taylor, asked that question of almost 200 economists attending a professional conference, almost 80 per cent got the wrong answer.

A Nobel laureate complained that ''the watered-down encyclopaedia which constitutes the present course in beginning college economics does not teach the student how to think on economic questions. The brief exposure to each of a vast array of techniques and problems leaves the student with no basic economic logic with which to analyse the economic questions he will face as a citizen.'' That was George Stigler, writing as long ago as 1963.


The article (http://www.smh.com.au/business/modern-economists-are-clever-with-numbers-but-way-out-of-tune-20140418-36w84.html) in question

So who got it right? I joined the 80%...

Regards
Hugh

jar
April 19th, 2014, 06:04 AM
The problem is that there was no encouragement to go on to the next questions which are "Is there any opportunity cost in the first place?" and "Is there a better way to spend your time than at either concert?"

Economists tend to think their answer is the right answer and I imagine each respondent could make a case to support their position.

The idea that in life there is always (or even often) some "RIGHT" answer is another serious error made in education. In most cases there can only be better (seldom even a best) answer.

raging.dragon
April 19th, 2014, 12:35 PM
The idea that the goal of life revolves around economics or that what is good for an economy is good for society or an individual is a big part of the problems with the US.

Throughout history economics (one group want to take some resources from another) and religion (one group wants to impose their beliefs on another) seem to have been the preeminent drivers of conflicts both within and between societies.

By definition, economics is the study of distributing scarce (finite) resources, and an economy is the system by which such distribution is accomplished. Since all resources are finite having a functioning a functioning economy is pretty much a prerequisite to having a functional society. As in religion and many other fields, in economics dogmatic adherence to ideology is destructive. Economics tries to describe all the complexities of the world; however, those complexities are more than the human mind can fathom. Therefore, ideologies are (by necessity) simplified models of the world that people can more readily understand. Because the ideologies are simplified, they unavoidably incomplete and error prone.

I think one of the many failures of modern education is that it fails to impart a good understanding of basic economic principles. Because many people lack this understanding, individuals and societies more often get swept away by ideologies and do great damage to one another in doomed attempts to create utopias.

raging.dragon
April 19th, 2014, 12:39 PM
I don't see capitalism as being a problem for the United States. I see many solutions brought about by capitalism.

Perhaps you could provide some examples.

The biggest benefit of capitalism is that it decentralizes decision making and thus eliminates single points of failure. For example, in a centralized economies people have starved because a bureacracy (distracted by other problems) forgot to issue the orders to transport grain from rural storage sites to the cities that needed it. If such a thing happened in a capitalist economy, anybody with a truck could make money by transporting grain, and many would take advantage of the opportunity, thus preventing (or at least reducing) the crisis.

LagNut
April 19th, 2014, 01:12 PM
I got it right! I never found the time in college to take economics, but I wish I had, and this is one of the concepts I tried to teach my girls. It's, to my mind, one of the more important concepts the dismal science came up with.

I'll confess to a STEM fixation on there being one right answer, and I did push my girls towards subjects which tend toward the one right answer type subjects, which is probably why the o new one who's graduating has a minor in interpretive dance.

I suspect a good part of the 80% may have had other theories as to their answer, and my correct answer is because my learning came from a Barron's "teach yourself" paperback.

Opportunity cost is a concept, like Christianity, which is simpler the less you know, and the less you apply it. (Which would also have had me answer that a Christian has really only two commandments, not ten, and that these two commandments have the same slipperiness that opportunity cost has).

Flounder
April 19th, 2014, 01:37 PM
I don't see capitalism as being a problem for the United States. I see many solutions brought about by capitalism.

Perhaps you could provide some examples.

The biggest benefit of capitalism is that it decentralizes decision making and thus eliminates single points of failure. For example, in a centralized economies people have starved because a bureacracy (distracted by other problems) forgot to issue the orders to transport grain from rural storage sites to the cities that needed it. If such a thing happened in a capitalist economy, anybody with a truck could make money by transporting grain, and many would take advantage of the opportunity, thus preventing (or at least reducing) the crisis.

Capitalist grain speculation today ensures the same famine.

HughC
April 19th, 2014, 05:04 PM
The problem is that there was no encouragement to go on to the next questions which are "Is there any opportunity cost in the first place?" and "Is there a better way to spend your time than at either concert?"

Economists tend to think their answer is the right answer and I imagine each respondent could make a case to support their position.

The idea that in life there is always (or even often) some "RIGHT" answer is another serious error made in education. In most cases there can only be better (seldom even a best) answer.

The reason for the article ( and the question) was to show that people that should know the correct answer didn't ( at 80% didn't). Did you read the article linked too? ( Here (http://www.smh.com.au/business/modern-economists-are-clever-with-numbers-but-way-out-of-tune-20140418-36w84.html)) It's well worth it, Gittens is one of the more down to earth economists ( and one of the best) in Australia these days

Newjelan
April 19th, 2014, 05:08 PM
I got it right, but I'm not a fan of Dylan. ;-)

HughC
April 19th, 2014, 05:16 PM
I don't see capitalism as being a problem for the United States. I see many solutions brought about by capitalism.

Perhaps you could provide some examples.

The biggest benefit of capitalism is that it decentralizes decision making and thus eliminates single points of failure. For example, in a centralized economies people have starved because a bureacracy (distracted by other problems) forgot to issue the orders to transport grain from rural storage sites to the cities that needed it. If such a thing happened in a capitalist economy, anybody with a truck could make money by transporting grain, and many would take advantage of the opportunity, thus preventing (or at least reducing) the crisis.

Capitalist grain speculation today ensures the same famine.

The other issue now is some corporations are such large multinational entities that they make their own "rules" especially when it comes to tax avoidance, a point alluded to by Jar in his OP. Every "system" has it's benefits and weaknesses.

HughC
April 19th, 2014, 05:30 PM
the o new one who's graduating has a minor in interpretive dance.

My daughter teaches dance in high school, one of those subjects that provides a lot more to the overall education of some than most would think. Some who would otherwise have no interest in school do lift their overall results by having to both attend and behave if they wish to perform in the various events on offer, it also gives some a chance to see they can achieve something ( dancing in front of a couple thousand people).

jar
April 19th, 2014, 05:46 PM
The problem is that there was no encouragement to go on to the next questions which are "Is there any opportunity cost in the first place?" and "Is there a better way to spend your time than at either concert?"

Economists tend to think their answer is the right answer and I imagine each respondent could make a case to support their position.

The idea that in life there is always (or even often) some "RIGHT" answer is another serious error made in education. In most cases there can only be better (seldom even a best) answer.

The reason for the article ( and the question) was to show that people that should know the correct answer didn't ( at 80% didn't). Did you read the article linked too? ( Here (http://www.smh.com.au/business/modern-economists-are-clever-with-numbers-but-way-out-of-tune-20140418-36w84.html)) It's well worth it, Gittens is one of the more down to earth economists ( and one of the best) in Australia these days

Yes I read it and the point you raise is what I was addressing in my response, specifically that there IS a right answer.

ethernautrix
April 20th, 2014, 01:30 PM
I said $0, because if I had a free ticket for Clapton and Dylan was my next-best option (not best), then I'd be seeing Clapton for free.

I found this to be the significant idea: "make the best decisions about how to spend the limited time and money available to them." Seeing Clapton or Dylan isn't an economical decision for me, because I would choose the one I wanted to see. I would rather pay $150 to see Cirque du Soleil than see David Blaine perform for free, for instance.

Let's say I had this free ticket to Clapton but preferred to see Dylan. Then I would try to sell my Clapton ticket for the price of the Dylan ticket.

LagNut
April 21st, 2014, 10:07 AM
My daughter teaches dance in high school, one of those subjects that provides a lot more to the overall education of some than most would think.

My thanks to her, Ernst, and any others who are teachers by profession, a group who are not compensated at the level they should be, at least in the US, and I suspect generally. At the critical point of their contribution to society, they should be more valued than they are.

This is one of the areas where market solutions don't work, as the benefit is most strongly added to the commons if it is done well. Further, it is a future commons, one that will only tangentially aid a good fraction of those paying for it.

And, as a final note, I am always struck that the origin of the idea, if not the quote "that which governs best governs least" set up public schools as part of his legacy.

pengeezer
April 21st, 2014, 06:38 PM
There is no doubt the standard of the education has risen within the US population, whether that standard has delivered what you think it should have is a different matter and spending more time at school, at the very least, indicates a greater commitment to education regardless of the outcome.

But again you repeat the claim that the standard of education has risen without providing any evidence in support of that assertion when study after study shows US students performing poorly in EVERY area tested. Spending more time at school does not indicate anything more than lip service, certainly no commitment to education.

Remember that in the US there is no National Curricula, no National tests. And every independent test comparing US and other nations reflects poorly on the US.

How can we maintain a Democratic Republic instead of a Fascist Oligarchy when the citizens are not educated and informed?

I have provided information to support that claim. It shows an increased level of achievement and an increase in the percentage of people obtaining more education. It's you who need to demonstrate that doubling the amount of schooling and high school/ collage graduation rates going from 20% to 80% failed to increase the overall education level within the population. There's also : 120 Years of American Education. A Statistical Portrait (http://www.thebrokenwindow.net/papers/9/93442.pdf)....if you want to read something really boring.

There is no doubt education standards have risen imo, it appears to me that they don't produce the results you would like them to produce and that's the issue you have with education. Given we both seem to agree on what should be taught, in a general sense, it appears to me this line of debate has reached the end where we'll just have to disagree on this point !! It's been an interesting topic and I've enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Now I'd better go back to the OP and see what else needs further discussion...

For almost 12 years I have worked for a private educational services company. We hire people who have at least a
4-year degree to score responses made by elementary,junior high and high school students on the essay portion
of the standardized test from their given state. The students have to follow the rubric correctly as it is shown.
Our site handles several different states and you would be surprised at the different emphasis each state requires.
I personally know many of the veteran readers that have continued to return to score the projects over the years
and they all say the same thing--the rules for scoring the student papers has gotten worse and more confusing. At
the same time,the student responses to the essay question(s) from various states indicates that the students have
not become smarter,but have regressed in their knowledge of the subject matter. There are a scarce number of stu-
dents that understand the state's rubric and score high,but the majority of students tend to be average to mediocre.
Some even care less and say so on their essays.

The politicians in this country are more concerned with the image of this country looking comparable to other countries
when it comes to showing how well educated their students are,as opposed to what and how much the students really
learn. Education in this country has been--for some time--a business. Learning for the sake of learning has gone by the
wayside. Despite what is written or said(and books,brochures and polls can be made to say whatever one wants it to say),
this country's next generation isn't something to be proud of.



John


An addendum:

I just found out yesterday from a reader that is a close friend that though he is one of the high scorers in the present
project,those in charge want him to come in line with the rest of the readers so that the scoring agrees across the
board,the company meets its deadline and the state represented by the project looks good. His impression is that some
of the paper(s) graded by him are better than other readers realize,but the "average" relativistic response required
means that the impetus for meeting the deadline and making the state look good is far more important than a true
rendering of how the students in that state are actually doing,good or bad.

raging.dragon
April 21st, 2014, 09:30 PM
I said $0, because if I had a free ticket for Clapton and Dylan was my next-best option (not best), then I'd be seeing Clapton for free.

I found this to be the significant idea: "make the best decisions about how to spend the limited time and money available to them." Seeing Clapton or Dylan isn't an economical decision for me, because I would choose the one I wanted to see. I would rather pay $150 to see Cirque du Soleil than see David Blaine perform for free, for instance.

Let's say I had this free ticket to Clapton but preferred to see Dylan. Then I would try to sell my Clapton ticket for the price of the Dylan ticket.

I agree that it was a bad example. The "right" answer is only "right" if the options are mutually exclusive. However, I can see Clapton tonight and Dylan some other time. Or vice versa. So the opportunity cost calculation should consider the differences in cost and value between doing A then B versus doing B then A, instead of looking at the differences between doing A verus doing B.

HughC
April 26th, 2014, 05:04 PM
I said $0, because if I had a free ticket for Clapton and Dylan was my next-best option (not best), then I'd be seeing Clapton for free.

I found this to be the significant idea: "make the best decisions about how to spend the limited time and money available to them." Seeing Clapton or Dylan isn't an economical decision for me, because I would choose the one I wanted to see. I would rather pay $150 to see Cirque du Soleil than see David Blaine perform for free, for instance.

Let's say I had this free ticket to Clapton but preferred to see Dylan. Then I would try to sell my Clapton ticket for the price of the Dylan ticket.

I agree that it was a bad example. The "right" answer is only "right" if the options are mutually exclusive. However, I can see Clapton tonight and Dylan some other time. Or vice versa. So the opportunity cost calculation should consider the differences in cost and value between doing A then B versus doing B then A, instead of looking at the differences between doing A verus doing B.


Would two top flight economists ask a question to a couple of hundred colleagues that they hadn't thought through properly? It's not a "bad example", misread and over misanalysed though ie "free ticket to see an Eric Clapton concert (which has no resale value)" and "Bob Dylan is performing on the same night and is your next-best alternative activity.". It's a simple multiple choice question and has one answer, it has to do with basic economic principles that economists should understand ( to me I chose $0 btw) and get right. What it highlights ( and the associated article) is that a large number of "economists" who advise every thing from small business to governments may not fully understand the basics which help deliver the best results.

jar
April 26th, 2014, 07:51 PM
Would two top flight economists ask a question to a couple of hundred colleagues that they hadn't thought through properly?

Absolutely.


It's a simple multiple choice question and has one answer, it has to do with basic economic principles that economists should understand ( to me I chose $0 btw) and get right. What it highlights ( and the associated article) is that a large number of "economists" who advise every thing from small business to governments may not fully understand the basics which help deliver the best results.

And that is a great example of the problem, There is no such thing as "best results™". and thinking there is such a thing is an indication of the narrowness add limitations of their education.

pengeezer
April 26th, 2014, 08:48 PM
Absolutely.


It's a simple multiple choice question and has one answer, it has to do with basic economic principles that economists should understand ( to me I chose $0 btw) and get right. What it highlights ( and the associated article) is that a large number of "economists" who advise every thing from small business to governments may not fully understand the basics which help deliver the best results.

And that is a great example of the problem, There is no such thing as "best results™". and thinking there is such a thing is an indication of the narrowness add limitations of their education.


When I was getting my degree in college,I decided to take a course in macroeconomics. I found out that it's
easy to create a final(multiple choice) where ALL the answers COULD be correct but only the answer
the professor CHOOSES is the correct one.

So much for getting an absolute answer from an economist.


John

HughC
April 26th, 2014, 09:56 PM
There is no such thing as "best results™". and thinking there is such a thing is an indication of the narrowness add limitations of their education.

Of course there is, maybe what one thinks of as a "best result" is open to debate and as you mentioned in your OP to a lot money is the driver rather than long term results to benefit the most which is what I'd like to think a "best result" should deliver ( but rarely does). The better one understands the basics of a particular subject/process or like the greater the ability to arrive at the best course of action to deliver best possible results. If your going to change something ( be it company/govt policy right through to how your desk is organized) there are several fundamentals, the first is to fully understand what you already have, the second is to determine what could be improved , the third is to determine future needs and lastly how to make that change so it is an improvement. I sat for many years on a statutory authority that dealt with biosecurity, 10 yrs ago our state (NSW) had a well coordinated strategy that delivered reasonable results, a review and subsequent change resulted in a system that still delivered reasonable results but failed to fix the long term problems the organization had, the last review and changes resulted in biosecurity being so downgraded that my state no longer has the capacity to deal with a major event should it occur and failed to address the long term issues ( grumble, grumble !! ...a particularly sore point with me..). The people who drove this had no idea of the basics of biosecurity, no idea that agricultural biosecurity relates directly food and no idea that a rising population will create a host of issues for agriculture.

jar
April 27th, 2014, 07:39 AM
There is no such thing as "best results™". and thinking there is such a thing is an indication of the narrowness add limitations of their education.

Of course there is, maybe what one thinks of as a "best result" is open to debate and as you mentioned in your OP to a lot money is the driver rather than long term results to benefit the most which is what I'd like to think a "best result" should deliver ( but rarely does). The better one understands the basics of a particular subject/process or like the greater the ability to arrive at the best course of action to deliver best possible results. If your going to change something ( be it company/govt policy right through to how your desk is organized) there are several fundamentals, the first is to fully understand what you already have, the second is to determine what could be improved , the third is to determine future needs and lastly how to make that change so it is an improvement. I sat for many years on a statutory authority that dealt with biosecurity, 10 yrs ago our state (NSW) had a well coordinated strategy that delivered reasonable results, a review and subsequent change resulted in a system that still delivered reasonable results but failed to fix the long term problems the organization had, the last review and changes resulted in biosecurity being so downgraded that my state no longer has the capacity to deal with a major event should it occur and failed to address the long term issues ( grumble, grumble !! ...a particularly sore point with me..). The people who drove this had no idea of the basics of biosecurity, no idea that agricultural biosecurity relates directly food and no idea that a rising population will create a host of issues for agriculture.

But what you are saying simply supports my position.

In particular, "best results" depend on context and desired outcome. If the short term costs are the desired outcome than the best results are the actions that reduce short term costs.

What you might consider as best results may be entirely different than what someone else considers as best results.

That is why the primary purpose of education should not job training but rather how to think and learn and the responsibilities of citizenship.

pengeezer
April 27th, 2014, 12:32 PM
Economist: One owned by the wealthiest,predicts the rosiest at the expense of the poorest. See also CHARLATAN;
CHALDEAN;THE THREE STOOGES.


John

HughC
April 27th, 2014, 04:23 PM
In particular, "best results" depend on context and desired outcome. If the short term costs are the desired outcome than the best results are the actions that reduce short term costs.

What you might consider as best results may be entirely different than what someone else considers as best results.



True. How often are actions designed to deliver "best results" don't in the longer time frame? How often do people say "I'd do it differently next time"? There generally is an action that will deliver the "best result" ( or better result), the best possible result exists but it's often eludes most for countless reasons one of which is, as you point out, lack of training to think ( in broad terms). Religion and ideology are also major inhibitors.

jar
April 27th, 2014, 04:38 PM
How often do people say "I'd do it differently next time"? There generally is an action that will deliver the "best result" ( or better result), the best possible result exists but it's often eludes most for countless reasons one of which is, as you point out, lack of training to think ( in broad terms).

But as I pointed out above, unless folk know what was done in the past and what the results were there is no reason to ever expect them to do it differently next time.


Religion and ideology are also major inhibitors.

Not religion and ideology but rather religion and ideology based on willful ignorance and denial of reality are inhibitors.

HughC
April 27th, 2014, 06:57 PM
Not religion and ideology but rather religion and ideology based on willful ignorance and denial of reality are inhibitors.

Hardly any difference as I use the terms in a broad sense, your definition is a subset. Name one religion based on fact and reality? Yet religious ideology can produce very desirable outcomes ( and undesirable at times).

jar
April 27th, 2014, 07:37 PM
Not religion and ideology but rather religion and ideology based on willful ignorance and denial of reality are inhibitors.

Hardly any difference as I use the terms in a broad sense, your definition is a subset. Name one religion based on fact and reality? Yet religious ideology can produce very desirable outcomes ( and undesirable at times).

Almost all religions are based on fact and reality. Again, it is ignorance of what religions are that leads to comments like the above. Religions are attempts at building mythos and societies; peoples. They are reflections of societies, snap shots of reality at a given era and ethos.

Now perhaps you meant "name one god or God or GOD that is based on reality? But in that case the answer is yet again, many. Over time we have learned that in every case so far where it has been possible to test such beliefs the results have been that while based on reality it was rather a matter of ignorance that allowed misinterpretation of the cause of a real phenomenon.

But that is an entirely different question than whether a religion is based on reality or facts. Judaism (and the two other Judaic religions) is a great example. It is very much fact based.

pengeezer
April 27th, 2014, 07:48 PM
"Religion and ideology are also major inhibitors."
"Not religion and ideology but rather religion and ideology based on willful ignorance and denial of reality are inhibitors."

Jar's statement says quite a bit about all human nature,past,present and future.....


John

HughC
April 27th, 2014, 09:09 PM
Not religion and ideology but rather religion and ideology based on willful ignorance and denial of reality are inhibitors.

Hardly any difference as I use the terms in a broad sense, your definition is a subset. Name one religion based on fact and reality? Yet religious ideology can produce very desirable outcomes ( and undesirable at times).

Almost all religions are based on fact and reality. Again, it is ignorance of what religions are that leads to comments like the above. Religions are attempts at building mythos and societies; peoples. They are reflections of societies, snap shots of reality at a given era and ethos.

Now perhaps you meant "name one god or God or GOD that is based on reality? But in that case the answer is yet again, many. Over time we have learned that in every case so far where it has been possible to test such beliefs the results have been that while based on reality it was rather a matter of ignorance that allowed misinterpretation of the cause of a real phenomenon.

But that is an entirely different question than whether a religion is based on reality or facts. Judaism (and the two other Judaic religions) is a great example. It is very much fact based.

Your comments indicate a lack of understanding of the evolution of religion which is the first form of politics and governance and still remains in many parts of the world a serious political force ( Iran for example). The notion that there is a higher, unseen being ( a god or gods if you so desire) that only a few "chosen ones" can represent is very convenient if you're one of the "chosen" and get to lead, a classic oligarchy. Given that religion relies for it power on a believe in a higher entity that has no factual basis, on doctrine that defies known facts ( the Christian bible is an example) and natural phenomena that are portrayed as "divine intervention" (the volcano erupted because the gods where angry...) renders your comments hard to defend. How do you expect people to learn from history if history is based on "mythos" that indoctrinates it's followers? Again I ask you a question ( you've failed to answer a lot so far....), this avoidance to answer questions ( while expecting yours answered) is rather poor form.

HughC
April 28th, 2014, 05:35 AM
This article (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-higher-education-needs-to-be-more-like-bmw-than-ford-20140427-zr0cw.html), while referring to higher education in Australia makes interesting reading and I imagine will resonate with readers from elsewhere. Note: Colleges of Advanced Education where sub university mainly training primary school teachers ( 5-12 yr olds) with a practical experience outlook . TAFE handled trade based courses.

So is there too much emphasis on higher education? Personally I've thought that for some time. I like this from Professor Athanasou "Universities are places where you go to learn about theory; they teach you things that you may not need to know but that no one else would bother to tell you".

jar
April 28th, 2014, 07:21 AM
Your comments indicate a lack of understanding of the evolution of religion which is the first form of politics and governance and still remains in many parts of the world a serious political force ( Iran for example). The notion that there is a higher, unseen being ( a god or gods if you so desire) that only a few "chosen ones" can represent is very convenient if you're one of the "chosen" and get to lead, a classic oligarchy. Given that religion relies for it power on a believe in a higher entity that has no factual basis, on doctrine that defies known facts ( the Christian bible is an example) and natural phenomena that are portrayed as "divine intervention" (the volcano erupted because the gods where angry...) renders your comments hard to defend. How do you expect people to learn from history if history is based on "mythos" that indoctrinates it's followers? Again I ask you a question ( you've failed to answer a lot so far....), this avoidance to answer questions ( while expecting yours answered) is rather poor form.


Really? I show a lack of understanding of the evolution of religion?

First, you should understand that there is no such thing as "The Christian Bible™". There is no one universal Christian Cannon. But that is irrelevant to this thread.

Second, you need a greater understanding of religions though honestly, most members of religions show the same misunderstandings that you show. In fact the Christian Bible contains passages where the Jesus character in the story tells the audience that they are getting it all wrong and they are not the chosen or special folk. But that too is only barely relevant to this thread and then only as another example of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

This is moving way away from the topic and perhaps deserves it's own thread but I would be happy to discuss it with you but Iran or religion are NOT the topic of this thread.

If there is a question you think I have avoided I don't see it in the paragraph above. Please repost the question and I will try to address it.

HughC
April 29th, 2014, 04:50 AM
Your comments indicate a lack of understanding of the evolution of religion which is the first form of politics and governance and still remains in many parts of the world a serious political force ( Iran for example). The notion that there is a higher, unseen being ( a god or gods if you so desire) that only a few "chosen ones" can represent is very convenient if you're one of the "chosen" and get to lead, a classic oligarchy. Given that religion relies for it power on a believe in a higher entity that has no factual basis, on doctrine that defies known facts ( the Christian bible is an example) and natural phenomena that are portrayed as "divine intervention" (the volcano erupted because the gods where angry...) renders your comments hard to defend. How do you expect people to learn from history if history is based on "mythos" that indoctrinates it's followers? Again I ask you a question ( you've failed to answer a lot so far....), this avoidance to answer questions ( while expecting yours answered) is rather poor form.


Really? I show a lack of understanding of the evolution of religion?

First, you should understand that there is no such thing as "The Christian Bible™". There is no one universal Christian Cannon. But that is irrelevant to this thread.

Second, you need a greater understanding of religions though honestly, most members of religions show the same misunderstandings that you show. In fact the Christian Bible contains passages where the Jesus character in the story tells the audience that they are getting it all wrong and they are not the chosen or special folk. But that too is only barely relevant to this thread and then only as another example of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

This is moving way away from the topic and perhaps deserves it's own thread but I would be happy to discuss it with you but Iran or religion are NOT the topic of this thread.

If there is a question you think I have avoided I don't see it in the paragraph above. Please repost the question and I will try to address it.


Given there are numerous versions of the Holy Bible the term "Christian Bible" is used to cover all versions. On this topic and religion you raised it in your OP "Finally, the idea that beliefs that are simply refuted by facts and reality should be respected. In particular, the Christian Cult of Ignorance.." . Iran is mentioned to support what I said, no more , no less.

Given the importance you've placed on history and that you believe/seem to see religion as reality based I found this comment deserved a closer look "Religions are attempts at building mythos and societies; peoples. They are reflections of societies, snap shots of reality at a given era and ethos." hence the question "How do you expect people to learn from history if history is based on "mythos" that indoctrinates it's followers?". These are the sort of questions I've asked for no other reason than to expand on the concepts/ideas put forward, that they go unanswered ( there are other examples) limits the topic and makes progressing it much harder imo.

I agree the religious aspects probably should have it's own topic. I'm happy to participate.

jar
April 29th, 2014, 07:15 AM
Given there are numerous versions of the Holy Bible the term "Christian Bible" is used to cover all versions. On this topic and religion you raised it in your OP "Finally, the idea that beliefs that are simply refuted by facts and reality should be respected. In particular, the Christian Cult of Ignorance.." . Iran is mentioned to support what I said, no more , no less.

Given the importance you've placed on history and that you believe/seem to see religion as reality based I found this comment deserved a closer look "Religions are attempts at building mythos and societies; peoples. They are reflections of societies, snap shots of reality at a given era and ethos." hence the question "How do you expect people to learn from history if history is based on "mythos" that indoctrinates it's followers?". These are the sort of questions I've asked for no other reason than to expand on the concepts/ideas put forward, that they go unanswered ( there are other examples) limits the topic and makes progressing it much harder imo.

I agree the religious aspects probably should have it's own topic. I'm happy to participate.

Are you familar with 'canons'? There are not just different versions of the bible, there are diffe4rent Canons, lists of which books should be included and excluded; the largest having 80 books while the smallest recognizes only 5 books. The smallest Christian Canon has none of the New Testament included.

That is IMO far to great a range of variation to allow bumper sticker "Christian Bible" usage.


"How do you expect people to learn from history if history is based on "mythos" that indoctrinates it's followers?"

Myth and mythos are not synonymous. Nor did I say that history is based on indoctrination. Mythos is more than just 'myth'; it is a description of the patterns of belief of a given culture or era. Those beliefs include both myth and reality. The goal is to understand what is mythos.

Using religion as an example someone might be taught that Yahweh or Allah are god, or that person could be taught that Jews believe Yahweh is god and Muslims believe that Allah is god.

I am a product of a Christian Education, in a Christian boarding school where Sacred Studies was a required subject and religion was included in just about every subject. For example in math we learned the contributions from Islam and the Indus Valley; in biology we learned about how religious views, mostly from the three Judaic faiths, retarded knowledge of human anatomy and germ theory and mental illness. We studied the Eight Fold Path, Greek, Roman and Norse mythology, the writings of Mencius and Confucius, read translations of the Koran, the Talmud, held Talmudic discussions, practiced meditation, discussed the horrors of religious wars. We had to make the case for atheism, agnosticism and theism.

This was just the opposite of indoctrination (see my thread on growth of belief) and never during my education was I told what my teachers actually believed. (well, except maybe for Father Cantrell but there only indirectly) or what I should believe.

History is not based on mythos rather mythos is an element of culture. That is as true in non-religious society as in religious societies. The job of education must be to teach folk how to recognize and understand mythos. We need to understand what drives societies so we can recognize that in our own.

Such things are learned skills, part of critical thinking and I believe necessary if we are to be governed by an informed citizenry.

HughC
April 29th, 2014, 05:43 PM
Are you familar with 'canons'? .....That is IMO far to great a range of variation to allow bumper sticker "Christian Bible" usage.

[

I would think entirely appropriate. Is not a Christian canon a set of books regarded as "divinely inspired" and thus a a bible?

Thank you for addressing my question. History is conceptually a difficult area as it tends to be written in a biased fashion , by winners of wars, by invaders and by people to suit there needs ( one English king , I forget who, won that title by defeating the then king and rewrote history to proclaim himself King the day before that battle...the result was that all who supported the old king when defeated became traitors...not a good position to be in !!) and so on, this presents the problem of what actually occurred and what was "made up"(myth) and maybe not such an issue with older/ancient history but an issue with modern history where events are portrayed inaccurately ( cover ups and like) . On that and on just about every aspect of our lives we've been "indoctrinated" ( or subjected to that process) to a set of beliefs/values/lifestyle etc . our parents, our schooling, our religion, our history all indoctrinate us to a degree, I use the term "indoctrinate" in a general sense to convey that a lot don't examine what they're taught/told as well as they perhaps should. To some it sets their views for life, for others it doesn't. Your education sounds interesting but I'm not sure that the "religion in just about every subject" excludes a degree of indoctrination, I did read your "belief" topic ( perhaps I'll need to re-read it in light of this) . So is it fair to say you where indoctrinated to religion at a young age by your parents ? Could it be that your education that examined a broad range of religious "topics" been reinforcing the value of religion in life ?

I don't agree that the "job of education must be to teach folk how to recognize and understand mythos". The primary purpose of education has to be to give people a set of skills to function within society.

jar
April 29th, 2014, 06:12 PM
Are you familar with 'canons'? .....That is IMO far to great a range of variation to allow bumper sticker "Christian Bible" usage.

[

I would think entirely appropriate. Is not a Christian canon a set of books regarded as "divinely inspired" and thus a a bible?


I think that is simply a sophomoric position designed to palm the pea, divert attention, con the rubes.

And stop and think. Anyone that believes all Canons are divinely inspired are either ignorant, lying or presenting a god that is simply a trickster, Loki or Coyote. If Canons were divinely inspired why is there not a universal list of what should be included?

There are many different Christian Canons, as I said, and the differences are far to great to be grouped under one label.




Thank you for addressing my question. History is conceptually a difficult area as it tends to be written in a biased fashion , by winners of wars, by invaders and by people to suit there needs ( one English king , I forget who, won that title by defeating the then king and rewrote history to proclaim himself King the day before that battle...the result was that all who supported the old king when defeated became traitors...not a good position to be in !!) and so on, this presents the problem of what actually occurred and what was "made up"(myth) and maybe not such an issue with older/ancient history but an issue with modern history where events are portrayed inaccurately ( cover ups and like) . On that and on just about every aspect of our lives we've been "indoctrinated" ( or subjected to that process) to a set of beliefs/values/lifestyle etc . our parents, our schooling, our religion, our history all indoctrinate us to a degree, I use the term "indoctrinate" in a general sense to convey that a lot don't examine what they're taught/told as well as they perhaps should. To some it sets their views for life, for others it doesn't. Your education sounds interesting but I'm not sure that the "religion in just about every subject" excludes a degree of indoctrination, I did read your "belief" topic ( perhaps I'll need to re-read it in light of this) . So is it fair to say you where indoctrinated to religion at a young age by your parents ? Could it be that your education that examined a broad range of religious "topics" been reinforcing the value of religion in life ?

Again, that is simply another sophomoric argument.

You are just retreating into sloppy usage. And when you say 'I'm not sure that the "religion in just about every subject" excludes a degree of indoctrination;' it simply shows you did not actually read what I wrote. When both pro and con arguments are presented and the student is allowed, in fact encouraged, to make up their own mind and to challenge what they are being given it cannot be indoctrination.


I don't agree that the "job of education must be to teach folk how to recognize and understand mythos". The primary purpose of education has to be to give people a set of skills to function within society.

Yes, I know that you believe that and as I said in the OP I find that position (although you are now modifying it slightly for education to help do a job to a less specific 'set of skill to function within society') to be an obscenity.

Perhaps if you could explain what 'set of skill to function within society' means we might find some point of agreement?

HughC
April 29th, 2014, 07:57 PM
Are you familar with 'canons'? .....That is IMO far to great a range of variation to allow bumper sticker "Christian Bible" usage.

[

I would think entirely appropriate. Is not a Christian canon a set of books regarded as "divinely inspired" and thus a a bible?


I think that is simply a sophomoric position designed to palm the pea, divert attention, con the rubes.

And stop and think. Anyone that believes all Canons are divinely inspired are either ignorant, lying or presenting a god that is simply a trickster, Loki or Coyote. If Canons were divinely inspired why is there not a universal list of what should be included?

There are many different Christian Canons, as I said, and the differences are far to great to be grouped under one label.



By definition : A Christian biblical canon is the set of books that a Christian denomination regards as divinely inspired and thus constituting a Christian Bible.







Thank you for addressing my question. History is conceptually a difficult area as it tends to be written in a biased fashion , by winners of wars, by invaders and by people to suit there needs ( one English king , I forget who, won that title by defeating the then king and rewrote history to proclaim himself King the day before that battle...the result was that all who supported the old king when defeated became traitors...not a good position to be in !!) and so on, this presents the problem of what actually occurred and what was "made up"(myth) and maybe not such an issue with older/ancient history but an issue with modern history where events are portrayed inaccurately ( cover ups and like) . On that and on just about every aspect of our lives we've been "indoctrinated" ( or subjected to that process) to a set of beliefs/values/lifestyle etc . our parents, our schooling, our religion, our history all indoctrinate us to a degree, I use the term "indoctrinate" in a general sense to convey that a lot don't examine what they're taught/told as well as they perhaps should. To some it sets their views for life, for others it doesn't. Your education sounds interesting but I'm not sure that the "religion in just about every subject" excludes a degree of indoctrination, I did read your "belief" topic ( perhaps I'll need to re-read it in light of this) . So is it fair to say you where indoctrinated to religion at a young age by your parents ? Could it be that your education that examined a broad range of religious "topics" been reinforcing the value of religion in life ?

Again, that is simply another sophomoric argument.

You are just retreating into sloppy usage. And when you say 'I'm not sure that the "religion in just about every subject" excludes a degree of indoctrination;' it simply shows you did not actually read what I wrote. When both pro and con arguments are presented and the student is allowed, in fact encouraged, to make up their own mind and to challenge what they are being given it cannot be indoctrination.


Actually it's you who fail to look at it in the "bigger picture", you've been religiously indoctrinated from a young age ( and there's nothing wrong with that, it's part of a lot of peoples lives) yet you fail to canvas the possibility of this. Did your education weaken your religious beliefs? or did it strengthen them ? Religion has evolved (and continues to evolve) over countless thousands of years, examining that process is worthwhile and all modern religions have their roots in long gone religions and the elimination/reduction of rival religions. A process that is still occurring, your CC of I is an example and they obviously hold different views to you but are they wrong? Ask them and they'll have arguments equally indoctrinated into them to refute any claims against them. You need to get over the focus on christian religion to discuss religion in a global sense. Religion is about politics and governance, it's about power from numbers of followers and it's about indoctrinating people into a certain belief. Sometimes the outcomes are good, other times not so good. Over countless centuries region and power have been closely aligned, that's fact.


Perhaps if you could explain what 'set of skill to function within society' means we might find some point of agreement?

I've already done that:




Great Obscenities in the US.... second is that the purpose of the education system should be to train and prepare workers.

hi jar

i keep coming back to this (apologies for the lack of capitals, one hand out of action in a sling and using cap lock a pain), given that all people require an education (to some degree) to function within society be they workers. bosses, politicians or any thing else then the primary purpose of education would be to provide a skill set to function within society. that this also means a skill set to enable a person to be employed then links the primary purpose to work. does this then mean it becomes part of the prime purpose or a by product of the skills needed? the skill set needed at it's simplest level is open to being defined and i'm sure we would all agree on some and not on others. some of the skills i'd call essential are the obvious, reading, writing, maths and at a basic level. i'd add ethics/morals (noting the bias that can occur) as well because the less people that go before the courts the better and a knowledge of how society "works". the concept of education and job opportunities is well ingrained.

the secondary purpose is to expand that skill set, to deliver a 'well rounded" education. that, of course, delivers benefits to the student and the community be it history ( sometimes a biased area!!), music, arts or a foreign language among many. perhaps you need to expand this a bit jar . why does it fail? how does it fail?...given the us system is one i know nothing about. now 'electoral education" , does that mean being able to understand exactly what the policies mean so "informed" choices can be made? rather than the " believe me son, would i tell a lie" that the politicians stuff down our throats knowing full well it's not the real truth!! yes, ours do that too.

regards
hugh

jar
April 29th, 2014, 08:34 PM
Are you familar with 'canons'? .....That is IMO far to great a range of variation to allow bumper sticker "Christian Bible" usage.

[

I would think entirely appropriate. Is not a Christian canon a set of books regarded as "divinely inspired" and thus a a bible?


I think that is simply a sophomoric position designed to palm the pea, divert attention, con the rubes.

And stop and think. Anyone that believes all Canons are divinely inspired are either ignorant, lying or presenting a god that is simply a trickster, Loki or Coyote. If Canons were divinely inspired why is there not a universal list of what should be included?

There are many different Christian Canons, as I said, and the differences are far to great to be grouped under one label.



By definition : A Christian biblical canon is the set of books that a Christian denomination regards as divinely inspired and thus constituting a Christian Bible.







Thank you for addressing my question. History is conceptually a difficult area as it tends to be written in a biased fashion , by winners of wars, by invaders and by people to suit there needs ( one English king , I forget who, won that title by defeating the then king and rewrote history to proclaim himself King the day before that battle...the result was that all who supported the old king when defeated became traitors...not a good position to be in !!) and so on, this presents the problem of what actually occurred and what was "made up"(myth) and maybe not such an issue with older/ancient history but an issue with modern history where events are portrayed inaccurately ( cover ups and like) . On that and on just about every aspect of our lives we've been "indoctrinated" ( or subjected to that process) to a set of beliefs/values/lifestyle etc . our parents, our schooling, our religion, our history all indoctrinate us to a degree, I use the term "indoctrinate" in a general sense to convey that a lot don't examine what they're taught/told as well as they perhaps should. To some it sets their views for life, for others it doesn't. Your education sounds interesting but I'm not sure that the "religion in just about every subject" excludes a degree of indoctrination, I did read your "belief" topic ( perhaps I'll need to re-read it in light of this) . So is it fair to say you where indoctrinated to religion at a young age by your parents ? Could it be that your education that examined a broad range of religious "topics" been reinforcing the value of religion in life ?

Again, that is simply another sophomoric argument.

You are just retreating into sloppy usage. And when you say 'I'm not sure that the "religion in just about every subject" excludes a degree of indoctrination;' it simply shows you did not actually read what I wrote. When both pro and con arguments are presented and the student is allowed, in fact encouraged, to make up their own mind and to challenge what they are being given it cannot be indoctrination.


Actually it's you who fail to look at it in the "bigger picture", you've been religiously indoctrinated from a young age ( and there's nothing wrong with that, it's part of a lot of peoples lives) yet you fail to canvas the possibility of this. Did your education weaken your religious beliefs? or did it strengthen them ? Religion has evolved (and continues to evolve) over countless thousands of years, examining that process is worthwhile and all modern religions have their roots in long gone religions and the elimination/reduction of rival religions. A process that is still occurring, your CC of I is an example and they obviously hold different views to you but are they wrong? Ask them and they'll have arguments equally indoctrinated into them to refute any claims against them. You need to get over the focus on christian religion to discuss religion in a global sense. Religion is about politics and governance, it's about power from numbers of followers and it's about indoctrinating people into a certain belief. Sometimes the outcomes are good, other times not so good. Over countless centuries region and power have been closely aligned, that's fact.

If you read back through what I have written you will find I have been addressing religion in a global sense. Of course the CCoI is wrong in that their positions are simply refuted by reality. It is fine to say "I believe the Biblical flood or at least one of the mutually exclusive Biblical floods found in Genesis happened" but it is wrong to say "The Biblical flood or at least one of the mutually exclusive Biblical floods found in Genesis happened".

They are less an example of evolution than one of willful ignorance and lying to oneself.

Many things align with power beginning with control of water and labor. Yes, religion has often been one such tool. But if someone is actually educated about the facts of what happened, has an understanding of mythos, is a critical thinker then they can actually see such influences. It is an education not just or mostly or emphatically in job training.




Perhaps if you could explain what 'set of skill to function within society' means we might find some point of agreement?

I've already done that:




Great Obscenities in the US.... second is that the purpose of the education system should be to train and prepare workers.

hi jar

i keep coming back to this (apologies for the lack of capitals, one hand out of action in a sling and using cap lock a pain), given that all people require an education (to some degree) to function within society be they workers. bosses, politicians or any thing else then the primary purpose of education would be to provide a skill set to function within society. that this also means a skill set to enable a person to be employed then links the primary purpose to work. does this then mean it becomes part of the prime purpose or a by product of the skills needed? the skill set needed at it's simplest level is open to being defined and i'm sure we would all agree on some and not on others. some of the skills i'd call essential are the obvious, reading, writing, maths and at a basic level. i'd add ethics/morals (noting the bias that can occur) as well because the less people that go before the courts the better and a knowledge of how society "works". the concept of education and job opportunities is well ingrained.

the secondary purpose is to expand that skill set, to deliver a 'well rounded" education. that, of course, delivers benefits to the student and the community be it history ( sometimes a biased area!!), music, arts or a foreign language among many. perhaps you need to expand this a bit jar . why does it fail? how does it fail?...given the us system is one i know nothing about. now 'electoral education" , does that mean being able to understand exactly what the policies mean so "informed" choices can be made? rather than the " believe me son, would i tell a lie" that the politicians stuff down our throats knowing full well it's not the real truth!! yes, ours do that too.

regards
hugh

Where we disagree is a matter of order and emphasis; I would like to see education to learn how to be a citizen first. Teach critical thinking, semantics, grammar, complete sentences, spelling, history, logic, ethics first and place the emphasis there. Teach people how to learn instead of what to learn.

The failure is we don't teach ethics, history, semantics, grammar, critical thinking, logic, morality, duty, responsibility or even spelling, parts of speech, complete sentences. We don't give the general US population the tools they need to become informed citizens.

pengeezer
April 29th, 2014, 10:03 PM
"The failure is we don't teach ethics, history, semantics, grammar, critical thinking, logic, morality, duty, responsibility or even spelling, parts of speech, complete sentences. We don't give the general US population the tools they need to become informed citizens. "

+1. This has been going on for decades. More and more those in charge want the populace to know very little,so Americans get pablum in the
form of an electronic media where we don't have to think.

BTW,I'm a believer in one worldwide biblical Genesis flood,as the Bible teaches.


John

HughC
April 29th, 2014, 11:34 PM
They are less an example of evolution than one of willful ignorance and lying to oneself.


A sentiment few would disagree with. Still the "fracturing" ( for want of a better word) of the Christian religion has lead to numerous denominations ( Catholic, C.of E. , Baptist and so on) and that is evolution in action that still continues today. More of concern is that these radical/extreme views gain growing support, some take a long term view and simply aim to out breed others, we have one "sect" in our local town and they put rabbits to shame!! Extreme views do gain a hold at times, the Dark Ages showed that, but the relatively diverse nature of society now probably (?) limits the effect this will have in the long run.

In Australia we have a set curriculum for each state, all children have to follow it whether at a religious based school, home schooled or a public school and we're moving to a national curriculum at present ( which has positives and negatives). In the primary schools (<12) religious studies is available in public schools at the parents choice and as an alternative the Govt. decided to offer Ethics classes to those who declined scripture ( exactly how that will work and who will deliver it is a different matter). Education is also broadly based, with more emphasis on thinking than was previously taught ( again good and bad, academic results aren't as good) I wonder if such a system goes some way to addressing some of the issues you see in the US system? Mind you ours is far from perfect as your children are effectively taught what the Govt. wants them to learn.....which completes the circle.

jar
April 30th, 2014, 07:34 AM
"The failure is we don't teach ethics, history, semantics, grammar, critical thinking, logic, morality, duty, responsibility or even spelling, parts of speech, complete sentences. We don't give the general US population the tools they need to become informed citizens. "

+1. This has been going on for decades. More and more those in charge want the populace to know very little,so Americans get pablum in the
form of an electronic media where we don't have to think.

BTW,I'm a believer in one worldwide biblical Genesis flood,as the Bible teaches.


John

John, you are of course free to believe in a Biblical flood but of course there is not one flood account in the Genesis books but at least two mutually exclusive ones and any worldwide flood during the time humans have been on earth has been factually and totally refuted for the last several hundred years and all the new data from recent lines of evidence has just supported that position. As long as you understand that your beliefs are refuted by the facts and reality, all is good.

If that is something you are interested in discussing please start a thread on it and I will gladly discuss it with you.

Ernst Bitterman
May 1st, 2014, 03:06 PM
Where we disagree is a matter of order and emphasis; I would like to see education to learn how to be a citizen first. Teach critical thinking, semantics, grammar, complete sentences, spelling, history, logic, ethics first and place the emphasis there. Teach people how to learn instead of what to learn.

The failure is we don't teach ethics, history, semantics, grammar, critical thinking, logic, morality, duty, responsibility or even spelling, parts of speech, complete sentences. We don't give the general US population the tools they need to become informed citizens.

The very thing, and it's not limited to the US. Since it's May Day, I might opine that part of the reason for this problem is an informed, critically-capable citizenry is a fractious, difficult-to-control citizenry. It's a lot easier to campaign when the big issue is whether the federally mandated minimum size of a Cheetos bag should be Vast or Colossal.

HughC
May 1st, 2014, 07:11 PM
Since it's May Day, I might opine that part of the reason for this problem is an informed, critically-capable citizenry is a fractious, difficult-to-control citizenry. It's a lot easier to campaign when the big issue is whether the federally mandated minimum size of a Cheetos bag should be Vast or Colossal.

This deserves a bit of discussion imo. When I look across the political spectrum there are highly educated, well informed critical thinkers in every "slot" from far left to far right, yet what could they all agree on? ( if they where all in parliament/senate/congress probably a pay rise would meet unanimous approval...) Very little given the ideological divide, so in political terms what you say is generally true. In society people associate with "groups", be it family, race, ethnic leaning, regional leaning, religion,politics, wealth, hobbies, sport and so on , a very fractured society!!, and probably not a lot of common ground over the full spectrum. Now Jar is of the opinion that having informed citizens will be extremely beneficial and no doubt it would benefit society as a whole. I would think that the more "fractured" a country becomes the more difficult to reach a national consensus on a lot of issues. I'll throw some questions "out there"

Is a fractured society to the degree we now see a benefit or not, or are there both benefits and disadvantages?

Will better education ( as per Jar) breakdown the divides that already exist to a degree that better results ( be it political or social) are obtained?

Is it fair to say that race, religion and money are the big dividers in society at present or is one more so or some other ?

Would a better method of wealth distribution go a long way to solving a lot of problems seen ( ie social reform inc health, education, housing and job opportunities) ?

Are we over educating a vast number of people ( ie are Universities becoming degree "factories") ?

pengeezer
May 1st, 2014, 10:03 PM
"Are we over educating a vast number of people ( ie are Universities becoming degree "factories") ? "


On this I would agree with you,Hugh,esp. here in this country. I get the impression that many people are getting their degrees through
student loans and paying very highly for them. There is even a well-known insurance company here that is getting into
the student loan business.



John

Ernst Bitterman
May 2nd, 2014, 11:26 AM
Since it's May Day, I might opine that part of the reason for this problem is an informed, critically-capable citizenry is a fractious, difficult-to-control citizenry. It's a lot easier to campaign when the big issue is whether the federally mandated minimum size of a Cheetos bag should be Vast or Colossal.

This deserves a bit of discussion imo. When I look across the political spectrum there are highly educated, well informed critical thinkers in every "slot" from far left to far right, yet what could they all agree on?

It's not so much a lack of existence as a want of numbers. There's far too many underinformed, uncritical folks about who will happily follow a shallow slogan ("War on Terror" being a grand recent example); historically, this has been less of a problem because the systems of government haven't technically deferred to the collective opinion of the populace, but now that we're all commiting to this Democracy thing, it's important that the vast majority of whatever stripe should actually understand what the parties are offering and what they get up to between elections. The current behaviour of the ruling party in Canada is scaring our thinking minority pale, as it's accelerating an investment of power in the Prime Minister that has been creeping up since the 1970s to the point that international observers have gone from using us as a splendid example of how to run a country to a terrifying warning (and here's a link by way of citation: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2443672174/.


...Now Jar is of the opinion that having informed citizens will be extremely beneficial and no doubt it would benefit society as a whole. I would think that the more "fractured" a country becomes the more difficult to reach a national consensus on a lot of issues. I'll throw some questions "out there"

Is a fractured society to the degree we now see a benefit or not, or are there both benefits and disadvantages?

I'm not seeing how getting everyone's thinking skills up to speed leads to fracturing. Right now we have a lot of that, much of it artificial, in which a few power elites (you've seen this (http://www.policymic.com/articles/87719/princeton-concludes-what-kind-of-government-america-really-has-and-it-s-not-a-democracy?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social), I hope) keep the masses at each other's throats over trivia. Diversity of opinion, on the other hand, is a good thing, because one point of view may miss a necessary solution to a problem; the trick is to build a society in which diverse opinion thrives without developing insurmountable walls of tribalism or descending into a howling anarchy because you're no longer allowed to disagree with another's notions ("Hey, he's a Born-Again Pan-Cannibalist; if he wants to eat your granny, you let him. You've no right to tell him he's wrong for feeling that way").


Will better education ( as per Jar) breakdown the divides that already exist to a degree that better results ( be it political or social) are obtained?

That's the hope. The sort of education we're boosting here should enhance the power of comprehending the other guy's point; even if you don't agree, understanding why he's saying it means you're less likely to simply dismiss him as a dink, and it opens the door to discovering compromise of sufficient satisfaction to all involved.


Is it fair to say that race, religion and money are the big dividers in society at present or is one more so or some other ?

Religion was starting to lose ground, but the radicalization of the field in the past couple of decades has made for some set-backs. This increased religious radicalization has some elements of race and money to it, so it's hard to say if one really has priority over any of the others. I tend to look to wealth imbalance as the major factor, since religion and race are more easily overcome with the setting aside of some mere mental blocks. A Christian and a Muslim are, after all, both followers of Abrahamic traditions which boil down to "don't be a jerk to other people", and we're all mostly red inside, but saying "you need 10 Quatloos a day to live on" and I only make five doesn't change if I understand the motivations of the 1000 Quatloo/day man. One might point out that some religion divisions are on their base just highly traditionalized efforts at trade protection; "we don't eat pork" makes a lot of sense in a refrigerator-free environment, but "thou shalt shun garments made of linen and wool" sounds very much like something the Wool Council of Judea slipped into the text to make sure the Arimethean flax-growers didn't impinge upon the market.


Would a better method of wealth distribution go a long way to solving a lot of problems seen ( ie social reform inc health, education, housing and job opportunities) ?

I certainly think so. The current arrangement manifestly isn't working. If the low end of the poverty scale was "moderate comfort, sufficient shelter, fulfilled minimum daily calories", you'd still have people looking uphill with envy, but I doubt you'd have people rioting over it. It was said at some point in the 20th century that you don't get revolutions in the US because even the peasants are well-fed and comfortable. One may wonder if the Occupy Movement wasn't a sign that this is no longer sufficiently the case.

I don't, by the way, claim to have a demonstrable answer in this area. I think the low-key socialism of northern Europe is looking in the right direction, but I also think that we need some kind of paradigm shift away from capitalism and it's impossible demands for eternal growth. The problem with paradigm shifts is that they're hard to breed in captivity and you can't see what's on the far side without passing through one (a one-way trip). Capitalism is working only slightly better than Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Russian Communism did, and it seems to be a matter of either it goes or we do.


Are we over educating a vast number of people ( ie are Universities becoming degree "factories") ?

Here we run up against a problem in the use of the word "education". I, and I suspect Jar, say "no" because the sort of education we feel is needed is hardly touched upon. However, when we look at the term in the "proving an ability to sit in a class and produce the approved answer on demand" sense, then I think you're right. Education of this sort aims at "marketable skills", which means highly specific and specialized sorts of knowledge that may or may not be necessary for a given job. I agree that there is a problem with the current fad of almost EVERY position outside McDonalds calling for a degree, merely because not doing so suggests you're hiring dummies. I also think the focus on marketable skills is behind the lack of elements Jar, I and some of the others here pine for when we say people aren't getting the right education; actual critical thinking is NOT welcomed in most workplaces, as (relating to my previous post) it makes for unruly and sullen employees. What employers are after is, if I can chase a metaphor, people whose only tool is a hammer and who see all problems as nails; any problems not reducible to hammer-based solutions are ignored or avoided.

LagNut
May 2nd, 2014, 12:23 PM
As what I suspect might be the most libertarian person in this discussion, am I alone in wondering if the Cato institute has a "no fountain pen" policy?

I'm sorry to say, I actually liked their ideas until I figured out that it's advocating policies that would push us back to our third world beginnings.

Am I wrong about the lack of libertarian defense of their ideals?

jar
May 2nd, 2014, 01:23 PM
Cato Institute has never shown much in the way of rational thought that I've noticed.

HughC
May 2nd, 2014, 06:33 PM
Since it's May Day, I might opine that part of the reason for this problem is an informed, critically-capable citizenry is a fractious, difficult-to-control citizenry. It's a lot easier to campaign when the big issue is whether the federally mandated minimum size of a Cheetos bag should be Vast or Colossal.

This deserves a bit of discussion imo. When I look across the political spectrum there are highly educated, well informed critical thinkers in every "slot" from far left to far right, yet what could they all agree on?

It's not so much a lack of existence as a want of numbers. There's far too many underinformed, uncritical folks about who will happily follow a shallow slogan ("War on Terror" being a grand recent example); historically, this has been less of a problem because the systems of government haven't technically deferred to the collective opinion of the populace, but now that we're all commiting to this Democracy thing, it's important that the vast majority of whatever stripe should actually understand what the parties are offering and what they get up to between elections. The current behaviour of the ruling party in Canada is scaring our thinking minority pale, as it's accelerating an investment of power in the Prime Minister that has been creeping up since the 1970s to the point that international observers have gone from using us as a splendid example of how to run a country to a terrifying warning (and here's a link by way of citation: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2443672174/.

I'm mostly in agreement with what you say, perhaps the Italian system of Govt. says a lot....so diverse that it hardly ever functions well ( something like 62 since WW2) yet the Italian economy is one of Europe's stronger ones. I do think we have to accept a certain % of the population really doesn't care about being informed all that much, again the lower the better. It does appear in Australia that a lot are politically reasonably well informed and given the major parties generally don't stray to far from the middle (unless they've got to grovel to some minor party to stay in power) there's really little difference in a lot of areas and, or course, politicians have to disagree because they can't be seen supporting what the "other" side says....

to be continued ....

HughC
May 3rd, 2014, 05:46 AM
...Now Jar is of the opinion that having informed citizens will be extremely beneficial and no doubt it would benefit society as a whole. I would think that the more "fractured" a country becomes the more difficult to reach a national consensus on a lot of issues. I'll throw some questions "out there"

Is a fractured society to the degree we now see a benefit or not, or are there both benefits and disadvantages?

I'm not seeing how getting everyone's thinking skills up to speed leads to fracturing.

Perhaps not what I meant it to read as, I didn't mean to link those together as being mutually inclusive. The second being where we're heading rather than being a product of the first.




Is a fractured society to the degree we now see a benefit or not, or are there both benefits and disadvantages?

I'm not seeing how getting everyone's thinking skills up to speed leads to fracturing. Right now we have a lot of that, much of it artificial, in which a few power elites (you've seen this (http://www.policymic.com/articles/87719/princeton-concludes-what-kind-of-government-america-really-has-and-it-s-not-a-democracy?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social), I hope) keep the masses at each other's throats over trivia. Diversity of opinion, on the other hand, is a good thing, because one point of view may miss a necessary solution to a problem; the trick is to build a society in which diverse opinion thrives without developing insurmountable walls of tribalism or descending into a howling anarchy because you're no longer allowed to disagree with another's notions ("Hey, he's a Born-Again Pan-Cannibalist; if he wants to eat your granny, you let him. You've no right to tell him he's wrong for feeling that way").

[/QUOTE]

I agree a diversity of opinion is a great asset, and fundamental to finding "best possible outcomes" /"solution to problem". Personally I think society is no more "fractured " than when the post WW2 migration from Europe occurred which had very positive long term results but the common roots where clearly evident. I'm not so sure this is now the case, I think potential benefits but also a greater risk than previously as more "radical" views seem to be more common.





Will better education ( as per Jar) breakdown the divides that already exist to a degree that better results ( be it political or social) are obtained?

That's the hope. The sort of education we're boosting here should enhance the power of comprehending the other guy's point; even if you don't agree, understanding why he's saying it means you're less likely to simply dismiss him as a dink, and it opens the door to discovering compromise of sufficient satisfaction to all involved.



Sort of a "no brainer" question !! In full agreement.




Is it fair to say that race, religion and money are the big dividers in society at present or is one more so or some other ?

Religion was starting to lose ground, but the radicalization of the field in the past couple of decades has made for some set-backs. This increased religious radicalization has some elements of race and money to it, so it's hard to say if one really has priority over any of the others. I tend to look to wealth imbalance as the major factor, since religion and race are more easily overcome with the setting aside of some mere mental blocks. A Christian and a Muslim are, after all, both followers of Abrahamic traditions which boil down to "don't be a jerk to other people", and we're all mostly red inside, but saying "you need 10 Quatloos a day to live on" and I only make five doesn't change if I understand the motivations of the 1000 Quatloo/day man. One might point out that some religion divisions are on their base just highly traditionalized efforts at trade protection; "we don't eat pork" makes a lot of sense in a refrigerator-free environment, but "thou shalt shun garments made of linen and wool" sounds very much like something the Wool Council of Judea slipped into the text to make sure the Arimethean flax-growers didn't impinge upon the market.



I personally think race is the lessor, certainly I see far greater racial tolerance in Australia than 30 or 40 yrs ago (even 10) still one statistic ( which I haven't verified...but wandering around Sydney very believable !!) suggested 30% of those living in Australia where born somewhere else...so my observation is hardly surprising. Wealth, as you say, always creates divides and normally I'd place it above religion but the move to fundamentalism in one religion seems to be elict more emotive responses and hence more of an issue here anyway, of course "moderates" from any religion seem to "get on" pretty well as you indicate. Btw I was once a fairly big wool producer...oil based synthetics should have been banned imo... never found Armenian flax growers an issue :)

again...to be continued..

HughC
May 3rd, 2014, 06:02 PM
Would a better method of wealth distribution go a long way to solving a lot of problems seen ( ie social reform inc health, education, housing and job opportunities) ?

I certainly think so. The current arrangement manifestly isn't working. If the low end of the poverty scale was "moderate comfort, sufficient shelter, fulfilled minimum daily calories", you'd still have people looking uphill with envy, but I doubt you'd have people rioting over it. It was said at some point in the 20th century that you don't get revolutions in the US because even the peasants are well-fed and comfortable. One may wonder if the Occupy Movement wasn't a sign that this is no longer sufficiently the case.

I don't, by the way, claim to have a demonstrable answer in this area. I think the low-key socialism of northern Europe is looking in the right direction, but I also think that we need some kind of paradigm shift away from capitalism and it's impossible demands for eternal growth. The problem with paradigm shifts is that they're hard to breed in captivity and you can't see what's on the far side without passing through one (a one-way trip). Capitalism is working only slightly better than Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Russian Communism did, and it seems to be a matter of either it goes or we do.



I think so too. Don't know if the Occupy movement achieved much, it seems while they identified problems the "what caused them" and "how to fix 'em" seemed absent. One of the big issues ( now starting to be addressed) is large scale tax avoidance by large multinational corporations ( Apple being one such culprit) , corporations that have gained so much power they can nearly make their own rules!!. Capitalism does concentrate wealth in the top end and various methods have been tried to redistribute it, death duties was one used in Australia and was a spectacular disaster for the rural sector where returns on asset values are very low forcing many family farms to be sold ( luckily my mother, a strong willed and financially talented person managed to hold the Govt. at bay for a number of years and convince banks to lend when to her when my father died otherwise I'd have a different "job" now), and little seems to work effectively ( money=political power it seems). I'd also agree low -key socialism has many benefits, affordability and an effective tax system to fund it seem the key weakness though. Really what ever "system" we see the the most obvious change is the people at the top so from that perspective your last observation is probably correct....but I prefer democracy of some form.




Are we over educating a vast number of people ( ie are Universities becoming degree "factories") ?

Here we run up against a problem in the use of the word "education". I, and I suspect Jar, say "no" because the sort of education we feel is needed is hardly touched upon. However, when we look at the term in the "proving an ability to sit in a class and produce the approved answer on demand" sense, then I think you're right. Education of this sort aims at "marketable skills", which means highly specific and specialized sorts of knowledge that may or may not be necessary for a given job. I agree that there is a problem with the current fad of almost EVERY position outside McDonalds calling for a degree, merely because not doing so suggests you're hiring dummies. I also think the focus on marketable skills is behind the lack of elements Jar, I and some of the others here pine for when we say people aren't getting the right education; actual critical thinking is NOT welcomed in most workplaces, as (relating to my previous post) it makes for unruly and sullen employees. What employers are after is, if I can chase a metaphor, people whose only tool is a hammer and who see all problems as nails; any problems not reducible to hammer-based solutions are ignored or avoided.

One of the purposes of education is to gain skills that enable a person to follow a career/job course in life, that has to be accepted just as much as any other skills gained to enhance one's life including "critical thinking". This article (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-higher-education-needs-to-be-more-like-bmw-than-ford-20140427-zr0cw.html) makes an interesting read. I did think you, and Jar, where more about what's being taught and what's being emphasized rather than "over educating". I do think we are "over educating" a lot of people and those resources could be better used, a lot of tradespeople now out earn Uni. graduates such has been the oversupply of graduates and the"EVERY position outside McDonalds calling for a degree" mindset . Employers don't mind critical thinkers if they come up with "good" ideas but a number of jobs are basically "hammer and nail" ones, probably 90% of what I do as a "rancher" falls into that category. There are a lot of jobs that few really want but someone has to do them, generally those who don't have much of an education ( and had no interest in getting one either) so there will always be a pool that you'll never educate beyond a basic, if that, level .Perhaps not a great reflection on society but street sweepers with Uni. degrees wouldn't make much (practical) sense either. This is a difficult question in a lot of ways.

jar
May 3rd, 2014, 06:30 PM
There are a lot of jobs that few really want but someone has to do them, generally those who don't have much of an education ( and had no interest in getting one either) so there will always be a pool that you'll never educate beyond a basic, if that, level .Perhaps not a great reflection on society but street sweepers with Uni. degrees wouldn't make much (practical) sense either. This is a difficult question in a lot of ways.

I had a friend whose family owned a dump. They collected garbage. They sorted garbage. They listened to Back, Brahms, Beethoven, Bruckner, Jamal, Hendrix which was broadcast from loud speakers at the dump. They all had college educations. They were all educated.

Notice I have not mentioned degrees. Being degreed and educated are not synonymous.

Street sweepers with an education seem to make lots of practical sense to me.

HughC
May 3rd, 2014, 09:57 PM
There are a lot of jobs that few really want but someone has to do them, generally those who don't have much of an education ( and had no interest in getting one either) so there will always be a pool that you'll never educate beyond a basic, if that, level .Perhaps not a great reflection on society but street sweepers with Uni. degrees wouldn't make much (practical) sense either. This is a difficult question in a lot of ways.

I had a friend whose family owned a dump. They collected garbage. They sorted garbage. They listened to Back, Brahms, Beethoven, Bruckner, Jamal, Hendrix which was broadcast from loud speakers at the dump. They all had college educations. They were all educated.

Notice I have not mentioned degrees. Being degreed and educated are not synonymous.

Street sweepers with an education seem to make lots of practical sense to me.

Owning the business makes a bit of a difference because you need to be able to manage all aspects, you also need to have the set of skills to do that as a job. You can have street sweepers with any level of education but it's not needed. A Uni degree = higher education ,regardless of what you think, that's a universal standard world wide. I'm happy to accept that a degree may not deliver the education that you think it should, which is different.

jar
May 4th, 2014, 06:01 AM
There are a lot of jobs that few really want but someone has to do them, generally those who don't have much of an education ( and had no interest in getting one either) so there will always be a pool that you'll never educate beyond a basic, if that, level .Perhaps not a great reflection on society but street sweepers with Uni. degrees wouldn't make much (practical) sense either. This is a difficult question in a lot of ways.

I had a friend whose family owned a dump. They collected garbage. They sorted garbage. They listened to Back, Brahms, Beethoven, Bruckner, Jamal, Hendrix which was broadcast from loud speakers at the dump. They all had college educations. They were all educated.

Notice I have not mentioned degrees. Being degreed and educated are not synonymous.

Street sweepers with an education seem to make lots of practical sense to me.

Owning the business makes a bit of a difference because you need to be able to manage all aspects, you also need to have the set of skills to do that as a job. You can have street sweepers with any level of education but it's not needed. A Uni degree = higher education ,regardless of what you think, that's a universal standard world wide. I'm happy to accept that a degree may not deliver the education that you think it should, which is different.

A Uni degree does not mean educated; while it may be a standard it is a wrong standard. It is not an indication of being educated but rather only certification of a narrow skill set.

But the family not only owned the business, they did all those jobs for which an education is not needed according to you. But street sweepers are also supposed to be citizens, and to be an informed citizen education is needed.

HughC
May 4th, 2014, 04:57 PM
A Uni degree does not mean educated; while it may be a standard it is a wrong standard. It is not an indication of being educated but rather only certification of a narrow skill set.



You might not agree with it but it's the accepted standard. Just because you don't like it doesn't change it ( or give you the right to redefine it to what you think it should be), your opinion on this is just , your opinion.




.... they did all those jobs for which an education is not needed according to you.But street sweepers are also supposed to be citizens, and to be an informed citizen education is needed.

Correct, you don't need an education to do some jobs and there are people with no or limited education ( by choice or circumstance) in the workforce today (as I said earlier "Perhaps not a great reflection on society") but I did not say these people should not be offered education, you know very well what I've said about education needing to deliver a set of skills (post 30 and repeated recently), what I have implied is that a Uni degree would be a pointless waste of time for people doing some jobs. If you where employed to sweep streets/ sort garbage a Uni degree would be of no value to you in terms of your job. Over education is a waste of time, money and resources and provides little or no real benefits to the individual or the community.

On "an informed citizen" the most important aspect is not education but being presented with unbiased information, most people already have sufficient education to easily reach considered opinions if the information is presented to them in a form that allows this process to occur ie a range of views on any given issue allows a person to consider all aspects and reach their own conclusion. Media is the no.1 problem, no matter how well educated( or what type of education) or intelligent you are without unbiased information you will be no better "informed".

jar
May 4th, 2014, 05:36 PM
On "an informed citizen" the most important aspect is not education but being presented with unbiased information, most people already have sufficient education to easily reach considered opinions if the information is presented to them in a form that allows this process to occur ie a range of views on any given issue allows a person to consider all aspects and reach their own conclusion. Media is the no.1 problem, no matter how well educated( or what type of education) or intelligent you are without unbiased information you will be no better "informed".

But that is certainly not what all of the evidence shows. The evidence shows that most Americans (I am saying nothing about any other nation) are not even educated enough to know they are getting biased data (not information). After all they decided to destroy the US news and reporting system as well as all control of the information channels.

HughC
May 4th, 2014, 05:41 PM
As what I suspect might be the most libertarian person in this discussion, am I alone in wondering if the Cato institute has a "no fountain pen" policy?

I'm sorry to say, I actually liked their ideas until I figured out that it's advocating policies that would push us back to our third world beginnings.

Am I wrong about the lack of libertarian defense of their ideals?

Maybe, maybe not !! I'm to the right of the line ( and was indoctrinated that way from a young age) and it still suits my political beliefs overall. Such organizations as Cato need to viewed for what they are and balanced out with alternative views in the "big picture", some good ideas come along, some not so good but at least they do put views "out there" for discussion and that has to be beneficial in the long run. Mind you I find the "no mandatory safety belts " a strange thing to advocate given the proven life saving results worldwide and the economic benefits in health costs it brings.

HughC
May 4th, 2014, 05:48 PM
After all they decided to destroy the US news and reporting system as well as all control of the information channels.

We gave you Rupert Murdock to help the process along !! But yes it would seem symptomatic of a general decline in the US and , I guess, until there is sufficient "pressure" to restore media to a more factual footing then that will continue.

jar
May 5th, 2014, 06:43 AM
After all they decided to destroy the US news and reporting system as well as all control of the information channels.

We gave you Rupert Murdock to help the process along !! But yes it would seem symptomatic of a general decline in the US and , I guess, until there is sufficient "pressure" to restore media to a more factual footing then that will continue.

That would seem to require an informed citizenry.

HughC
May 5th, 2014, 09:25 PM
After all they decided to destroy the US news and reporting system as well as all control of the information channels.

We gave you Rupert Murdock to help the process along !! But yes it would seem symptomatic of a general decline in the US and , I guess, until there is sufficient "pressure" to restore media to a more factual footing then that will continue.

That would seem to require an informed citizenry.

"Informed Citizenry"!! Let's have a deeper look at this.

To have any chance to "convert" citizens into "informed citizens" you need to identify (as many) reasons/causes that, in your opinion, make citizens "uninformed" at present. That's fundamental and the notion that "education" will solve the perceived problems is most likely simplistic in view. If you want an "informed citizenry" it is imo a multilevel process, clearly the "informed" bit required information and also the ability to process that information (intelligence and education). Like the US here the general level of education amongst students is lowering in world terms, the "hobby horse" to wear the blame has been teachers, they're not educated enough, they lack training, they're not teaching "properly", these type of cheap shots are common. So now (for the <12s) they have to do extra training, increase reporting to identify under performing students, develop individual programs for those identified and provide extra assistance. Sounds good but in practice they simply expect the teacher to do more than they already do as no extra staff was made available, the end result is the teacher teaches less overall and while it does help the underachievers the overall standard drops.There's also talk of increasing the standard of education required to become a teacher and the course itself, given the pay scale for teachers is below that for occupations requiring a similar standard this may well be self defeating. From this it would appear the "education" bit would most likely require increased funding and increased numbers of teachers/staff to achieve better results and cover the areas you think should be included, you do have to accept that the current core subjects such as reading, writing and maths will remain as essential.

The role of parents in their child's education and upbringing has to be addressed. Such issues as behavioral problems ( possible causes include lack of discipline, poor diet, abuse, poor parental role models and the affect of drugs,such as ice, alcohol etc, used by parents before and during pregnancy) and study problems (possible causes include lack of parental guidance, computer games, misuse of social media and both parents working) and financial stress ( can't afford books, excursions etc) need to be considered. A secular education may be helpful.

It appears (to me) that the key areas are social, educational and information based to achieve your goal of "informed citizenry".

Implementation: You need a consensus on what changes are needed, what those changes should involve, how to implement and how to fund them !! Good luck on all that....especially getting the Govt. to shell out the $.....Still from a practical and cost effective view imo the first step is information reform for two reasons 1. You need information to start to address the social issues and 2. Given humans are intelligent you may get a better result towards the "informed citizenry" than you think , second I'd aim to address (as best as possible) the social issues and lastly the education aspect not because it's any less important but to me addressing the other area first would increase the value of the education process.

jar
May 6th, 2014, 06:25 AM
"Informed Citizenry"!! Let's have a deeper look at this.

To have any chance to "convert" citizens into "informed citizens" you need to identify (as many) reasons/causes that, in your opinion, make citizens "uninformed" at present. That's fundamental and the notion that "education" will solve the perceived problems is most likely simplistic in view. If you want an "informed citizenry" it is imo a multilevel process, clearly the "informed" bit required information and also the ability to process that information (intelligence and education). Like the US here the general level of education amongst students is lowering in world terms, the "hobby horse" to wear the blame has been teachers, they're not educated enough, they lack training, they're not teaching "properly", these type of cheap shots are common. So now (for the <12s) they have to do extra training, increase reporting to identify under performing students, develop individual programs for those identified and provide extra assistance. Sounds good but in practice they simply expect the teacher to do more than they already do as no extra staff was made available, the end result is the teacher teaches less overall and while it does help the underachievers the overall standard drops.There's also talk of increasing the standard of education required to become a teacher and the course itself, given the pay scale for teachers is below that for occupations requiring a similar standard this may well be self defeating. From this it would appear the "education" bit would most likely require increased funding and increased numbers of teachers/staff to achieve better results and cover the areas you think should be included, you do have to accept that the current core subjects such as reading, writing and maths will remain as essential.

The role of parents in their child's education and upbringing has to be addressed. Such issues as behavioral problems ( possible causes include lack of discipline, poor diet, abuse, poor parental role models and the affect of drugs,such as ice, alcohol etc, used by parents before and during pregnancy) and study problems (possible causes include lack of parental guidance, computer games, misuse of social media and both parents working) and financial stress ( can't afford books, excursions etc) need to be considered. A secular education may be helpful.

It appears (to me) that the key areas are social, educational and information based to achieve your goal of "informed citizenry".

Implementation: You need a consensus on what changes are needed, what those changes should involve, how to implement and how to fund them !! Good luck on all that....especially getting the Govt. to shell out the $.....Still from a practical and cost effective view imo the first step is information reform for two reasons 1. You need information to start to address the social issues and 2. Given humans are intelligent you may get a better result towards the "informed citizenry" than you think , second I'd aim to address (as best as possible) the social issues and lastly the education aspect not because it's any less important but to me addressing the other area first would increase the value of the education process.

Well. I don't think there is any chance remaining to create any consensus or that there is any desire in the US for there to be an informed citizenry which is why I consider that state to be an obscenity rather than a problem to be solved.

The solutions to the issues facing the US today are really very simply and could be implemented almost overnight though it would take a half century or so to actually see any positive results. Unfortunately making the changes needed (and you described quite a few of them) require an informed citizenry that elect representatives dedicated to the steps needed and so we arrive at the chicken and egg dilemma.

LagNut
May 6th, 2014, 02:15 PM
Wow, I'm also playing the role of the optimist.

My kids just left the k-12

LagNut
May 6th, 2014, 02:22 PM
Not a fan of the GUI here.

My kids just left k-12 here, public schools, going to public universities, and we just voted for a tax increase to save mainly education. Things are not as good as when we were going to the moon, but we're not in the thirties either.

I was actually happy with the education my kids got here in public schools, even though things were getting rather sparse before the tax increase.

LagNut
May 6th, 2014, 02:23 PM
By the GUI, I mean Tapatalk, way too easy for me to hit send as my hamfists mangle the keyboard.

LagNut
May 6th, 2014, 02:25 PM
This is in California, BTW. I'm also not in the "good school district" CA, we're middle of the road.

LagNut
May 6th, 2014, 02:30 PM
On the larger level, my kids did not experience the time where broadcast communication was required to operate for the public good, utilities were well run monopolies with functional public utility commissions and business paid enough taxes to support great school systems.

LagNut
May 6th, 2014, 02:35 PM
That is the pre-Gipper capitalism I would like to return to. I think we might.

HughC
May 6th, 2014, 06:48 PM
Not a fan of the GUI here.

My kids just left k-12 here, public schools, going to public universities, and we just voted for a tax increase to save mainly education. Things are not as good as when we were going to the moon, but we're not in the thirties either.

I was actually happy with the education my kids got here in public schools, even though things were getting rather sparse before the tax increase.

I like public education too, spending nearly 8yrs in a religiously aligned private school has given me a great appreciation of secular education. All mine went through the public system in a smallish country city (23,000) and experienced mixing with children from different backgrounds etc, none "went of the rails" and all did well. Out of interest the public system in NSW (before Australia came about as a country) came after the Catholic system (still a major educator ~20% of students nation wide) was "up and running" and started primarily to offer the non catholic majority an education system, so despite being "public" it's origins where based primarily on religious reasons first, education second.

LagNut
May 7th, 2014, 01:19 PM
I went through Catholic school myself for most of my K-12, though I was going through it as it was unraveling. It was an excellent education, and not what I would have expected if I had not gone through it. Better sex ed than my wife received in CA, but that was certainly due more to the requirement that we actually learn, not attention was never a viable option.

I had hoped I could give my kids the same advantage, but it turned out that the public schools were actually superior, and we ended up having them in the public system.

HughC
May 7th, 2014, 04:46 PM
The Catholic system here is very good overall. This might sound strange but private schools here do get some Govt. funding (on the argument that every tax payer funds education therefore regardless of where you send you child some of that money should be available and the extra cost, $6billion, if all those students, 34%, where in the public system and ) based on a formula around the socio-economic circumstance of the area where it's situated so schools in poorer areas gain more funds, on average it's about half that of a public student. Australia's most prestigious and wealth school ( The Kings School, Parramatta) lies in a poorer area and receives funds of $5.8m as well it's also about $30k to send your child there....about $40m to NSWs top 7 private and very elite schools, 4 are Catholic btw....so it has some major problems.

Ernst Bitterman
May 8th, 2014, 04:50 PM
That is the pre-Gipper capitalism I would like to return to. I think we might.

I could live with that. A lot of the problems we've got now are founded in the Reagan/Thatcher era, in which Business and The Economy were made the gods of government, and the "invisible hand of the market" was elevated to Holy Ghost status. That last is deeply ironic, given how firmly Smith's book says "Never let businessmen run a country; what's good for them is horrible for everyone else."

jar
May 8th, 2014, 05:27 PM
That is the pre-Gipper capitalism I would like to return to. I think we might.

I could live with that. A lot of the problems we've got now are founded in the Reagan/Thatcher era, in which Business and The Economy were made the gods of government, and the "invisible hand of the market" was elevated to Holy Ghost status. That last is deeply ironic, given how firmly Smith's book says "Never let businessmen run a country; what's good for them is horrible for everyone else."

Not just Smith but a few Republicans like Ike, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, Ford, Goldwater, Rockefeller ...

HughC
May 10th, 2014, 04:28 AM
From my favorite economist, http://http://www.smh.com.au/business/lets-have-a-levy-on-selfinterest-to-fix-the-deficit-20140509-3812d.html . Perhaps relevant to the Ernst's comment.

Ernst Bitterman
May 12th, 2014, 02:58 PM
Say, that is a good economist. How has he not been turned upon and rent asunder by his fellows?

LagNut
May 14th, 2014, 06:32 PM
That is the pre-Gipper capitalism I would like to return to. I think we might.

I could live with that. A lot of the problems we've got now are founded in the Reagan/Thatcher era, in which Business and The Economy were made the gods of government, and the "invisible hand of the market" was elevated to Holy Ghost status. That last is deeply ironic, given how firmly Smith's book says "Never let businessmen run a country; what's good for them is horrible for everyone else."

It's amazing to me that this lesson, so pointedly taught over the last decade is not being brought up. Even when it nearly put us back in a great depression.

Part of this, at least down here, is the steady drumbeat of whatever you'd call Fox, ditto heads, etc.

We'll see how things go, but we have a lot of ground to travel to return to the system we had. I just didn't realize how important some of what I just took for granted was.

I'm hopeful the FCC will make decisions toward righting our ship, and not the other way tomorrow.

In optimism,
Mike

Pendragon
June 1st, 2014, 03:50 PM
There is a fairly high proportion of Americans who believe the US has become an immoral society. I tend to agree with them but perhaps we might differ slightly on specifics of the Great Obscenities that characterize and define the USA today and so I thought it might be productive to present for discussion what I see as the Great Obscenities in the US.

The first is the idea that profit should be the primary motivator and driving force for innovation and the second is that the purpose of the education system should be to train and prepare workers.

I cannot think of many things that are more obscene, immoral and destructive than those two fallacies.

Next is the idea that a corporation is a person and that money is equivalent to speech.

Next is the fallacy that health care, utilities and services like police, prisons, fire, roads, bridges or communication systems should be unregulated and profit driven.

Finally, the idea that beliefs that are simply refuted by facts and reality should be respected. In particular, the Christian Cult of Ignorance (remember I am a Christian and so not denigrating all Christians) as seen in the US with their avoidance school systems should be recognized for just what it really is. They should be allowed to hold their beliefs as silly as they might be but not to insert those beliefs into government, education, social policy or law.

IMHO, the greatest obscenity in the US today is notion that there exists no middle ground, only the extremes offered by Ayn Rand and Karl Marx.

johnus
June 1st, 2014, 04:21 PM
Agree with HughC #123. I have a daughter in middle school(7th grade). The last thing that they are teaching her is to be a part of Informed Citizenry. Personally the last thing that our government now wants is a Citizenry that understand what they are doing.
Look at what the courts have done our election system. It's no longer an issue of what beliefs a candidate has, it's an issue of what Pact or corporation will give them then most money for their election. Money talks and the rest of us walk.

LagNut
June 4th, 2014, 06:42 AM
Agree with HughC #123. I have a daughter in middle school(7th grade). The last thing that they are teaching her is to be a part of Informed Citizenry. Personally the last thing that our government now wants is a Citizenry that understand what they are doing.
Not to pry, but I must. What state do you live in?

This sort of thing goes school by school, but I was pleased with the education my kids got in this respect here. At 7th grade, IMO, they are being given the background for the civics they'll receive in high school. Not all instruction met my political beliefs, but they were expected to think on their own and defend their own beliefs. It was as good as I could have hoped for, though my kids were always not in the mainstream with respect to their beliefs. They still aren't in college.



Look at what the courts have done our election system. It's no longer an issue of what beliefs a candidate has, it's an issue of what Pact or corporation will give them then most money for their election. Money talks and the rest of us walk.

On this, I am less sanguine. This is the result of a string of really outstandingly bad Supreme Court decisions. Stunningly bad.

On these, I hope we will be able to reverse their effect with legislation. But I can't be as optimistic here.

Mike

johnus
June 23rd, 2014, 07:42 PM
Hi , I live in update New York . The history/ citizenship class that they take in 7th is called Humanities. She just had her final exam this afternoon.

paultyler_82
June 24th, 2014, 11:49 PM
Look at what the courts have done our election system. It's no longer an issue of what beliefs a candidate has, it's an issue of what Pact or corporation will give them then most money for their election. Money talks and the rest of us walk.

On this, I am less sanguine. This is the result of a string of really outstandingly bad Supreme Court decisions. Stunningly bad.

On these, I hope we will be able to reverse their effect with legislation. But I can't be as optimistic here.

Mike

I'm not optimistic at all. We have to face the fact that the United States is not the representative republic that Lincoln so praised the idea of in the closing of his Gettysburg Address. We are, simply, a corporate oligarchy. PACs and fund raisers allow the rich to buy candidates exposure and are no more than thinly veiled end-runs around regulations to keep corporations and their representatives from directly funding politicians. The politicians themselves have high to ridiculous bankrolls themselves, precluding them from really understanding how the vast majority of their constituency lives. I must aside to ask, how does one who has no experience of the daily life of those that he or she represents have any claim to truly represent those people? There is no way to end this system, those who could represent the people properly could not possibly compete in today's election stage, they would simply be out-financed.
To compete, one must, realistically, gain a Democratic or Republican nomination... impossible if you would wish to buck the system that keeps either party funded. One would have to campaign on the same level as these parties' candidates, an undertaking on which millions of dollars are spent.
The very same obscenities to which jar referred in the OP have become pervasive in government. The almighty dollar runs the show and since We The People have less of those greenbacks, we may as well revise the Constitution to read: "We the Corporations." Legislation will not change, the Supreme Court was appointed by politicians with their hands in the till. The Justices are cut from the same cloth as the men that appointed them and the men that manufacture new legislation.
The Parties won't help, they are part of the problem, simply a guise to keep us picking the lesser of two evils, hoping we won't notice that they've both become the same thing. Their candidates spout different ideals that will never come about during their terms and they dole money out to different pet causes run by or affiliated with associates... but that's really the same isn't it, being mostly ineffectual and making your rich friends richer? If one was to have to pick between two pairs of briefs with skid marks in them and picked the one with less, that person would still be wearing soiled undies... crude analogy I suppose, but it seems to apply so well to our brand of politicians.
Until better regulation of campaign funding occurs and lobbyists are run out of DC with torches and pitchforks, I simply see our future as becoming more grim. People of the ilk of Peter Brabeck-Letmathe are at the helm of our government... Peter is the Chairman and former CEO of Nestle, the firebrand of water privatization who has stated publicly that the feels that access to water is not a public right.
Seems to me that the Government no longer derives it's power from the consent of the governed but from fear and complacency. In the current course of human events, no one would be able to stand up to the modern King George III and "his" tyranny, no one would dare dissolve these political bands; the king has become a warlord, commanding a force paid for by about a third of the world's total military expenditure and has been shown to have no qualms about using it against his own citizens, nor does he have reservations about collateral damage.

johnus
June 25th, 2014, 05:03 AM
Hear, hear!!

mmahany
June 25th, 2014, 02:25 PM
Look at what the courts have done our election system. It's no longer an issue of what beliefs a candidate has, it's an issue of what Pact or corporation will give them then most money for their election. Money talks and the rest of us walk.

On this, I am less sanguine. This is the result of a string of really outstandingly bad Supreme Court decisions. Stunningly bad.

On these, I hope we will be able to reverse their effect with legislation. But I can't be as optimistic here.

Mike

I'm not optimistic at all. We have to face the fact that the United States is not the representative republic that Lincoln so praised the idea of in the closing of his Gettysburg Address. We are, simply, a corporate oligarchy. PACs and fund raisers allow the rich to buy candidates exposure and are no more than thinly veiled end-runs around regulations to keep corporations and their representatives from directly funding politicians. The politicians themselves have high to ridiculous bankrolls themselves, precluding them from really understanding how the vast majority of their constituency lives. I must aside to ask, how does one who has no experience of the daily life of those that he or she represents have any claim to truly represent those people? There is no way to end this system, those who could represent the people properly could not possibly compete in today's election stage, they would simply be out-financed.
To compete, one must, realistically, gain a Democratic or Republican nomination... impossible if you would wish to buck the system that keeps either party funded. One would have to campaign on the same level as these parties' candidates, an undertaking on which millions of dollars are spent.
The very same obscenities to which jar referred in the OP have become pervasive in government. The almighty dollar runs the show and since We The People have less of those greenbacks, we may as well revise the Constitution to read: "We the Corporations." Legislation will not change, the Supreme Court was appointed by politicians with their hands in the till. The Justices are cut from the same cloth as the men that appointed them and the men that manufacture new legislation.
The Parties won't help, they are part of the problem, simply a guise to keep us picking the lesser of two evils, hoping we won't notice that they've both become the same thing. Their candidates spout different ideals that will never come about during their terms and they dole money out to different pet causes run by or affiliated with associates... but that's really the same isn't it, being mostly ineffectual and making your rich friends richer? If one was to have to pick between two pairs of briefs with skid marks in them and picked the one with less, that person would still be wearing soiled undies... crude analogy I suppose, but it seems to apply so well to our brand of politicians.
Until better regulation of campaign funding occurs and lobbyists are run out of DC with torches and pitchforks, I simply see our future as becoming more grim. People of the ilk of Peter Brabeck-Letmathe are at the helm of our government... Peter is the Chairman and former CEO of Nestle, the firebrand of water privatization who has stated publicly that the feels that access to water is not a public right.
Seems to me that the Government no longer derives it's power from the consent of the governed but from fear and complacency. In the current course of human events, no one would be able to stand up to the modern King George III and "his" tyranny, no one would dare dissolve these political bands; the king has become a warlord, commanding a force paid for by about a third of the world's total military expenditure and has been shown to have no qualms about using it against his own citizens, nor does he have reservations about collateral damage.

It seems you did a wonderful job of defining several problems. However, I saw little mention of your suggestions to fix them.

Before I offer my own response, I'm curious to know how you personally would fix them.

jar
June 25th, 2014, 03:06 PM
It seems you did a wonderful job of defining several problems. However, I saw little mention of your suggestions to fix them.

Before I offer my own response, I'm curious to know how you personally would fix them.

I will be interested in your suggestion. For the US to move away from a Fascist Oligarchy now I see absolutely no options short of revolution. If it were possible to change the makeup of the Supreme Court it might be possible but since Supreme Court members must pass Congressional muster I see no chance of that happening.

paultyler_82
June 25th, 2014, 06:26 PM
I offered two beginning steps to solving the problem, although I feel they are unlikely. Severe regulation of campaign funding. I would ideally like to see severe caps on campaign spending at all, but both of these methods of control are extremely unlikely. Second, lobbyists need to be barred. In theory lobbyists were a 'good' idea to curb corruption but in practice the concept has only created regulated, legal channels for bribery and intimidation tactics.
I would also like to see federal elected officials forced to openly reveal their finances to the public, with annual IRS audits of their records and legislation barring them from owning any offshore accounts or holdings in countries that allow number-only banking accounts or that are classified by US law as tax havens. If nothing else, these changes would be a start to fix things, dissuading those that are in office to make a buck and making room for people with a real spirit of public servitude.
The problem is that none of these changes seem remotely likely without some sort of outcry or violent upheaval. As jar stated, I see no likely option to actually fix our system short of a revolution. Unlike the militia-men drilling in the woods with bolt action rifles, however, I don't see a revolution as likely to happen. If a revolution did occur, there would be little change, the citizens couldn't possibly win anymore. Our government spends one third of the total global expenditure on military costs. In a ground troop fight, the citizenry would be outgunned and that is without even considering the use of air supression warfare. With unmanned drones, the government could inflict massive casualties without even putting soldiers in the line of fire. No revolution is likely or likely to succeed. Simply, I have no solution besides pointing out the problems and hoping enough people listen and comprehend enough to try to slowly take our country back at the voting booth... but I just don't think that to be likely either.

My only recourse is to complain about my government, loudly and often. It is my First Amendment right to do so and it is a right that I will exercise until the United States of Monsanto-Sony-Pepsico decides to deny us that right as well.

pengeezer
June 29th, 2014, 01:41 PM
Look at what the courts have done our election system. It's no longer an issue of what beliefs a candidate has, it's an issue of what Pact or corporation will give them then most money for their election. Money talks and the rest of us walk.

On this, I am less sanguine. This is the result of a string of really outstandingly bad Supreme Court decisions. Stunningly bad.

On these, I hope we will be able to reverse their effect with legislation. But I can't be as optimistic here.

Mike

I'm not optimistic at all. We have to face the fact that the United States is not the representative republic that Lincoln so praised the idea of in the closing of his Gettysburg Address. We are, simply, a corporate oligarchy. PACs and fund raisers allow the rich to buy candidates exposure and are no more than thinly veiled end-runs around regulations to keep corporations and their representatives from directly funding politicians. The politicians themselves have high to ridiculous bankrolls themselves, precluding them from really understanding how the vast majority of their constituency lives. I must aside to ask, how does one who has no experience of the daily life of those that he or she represents have any claim to truly represent those people? There is no way to end this system, those who could represent the people properly could not possibly compete in today's election stage, they would simply be out-financed.
To compete, one must, realistically, gain a Democratic or Republican nomination... impossible if you would wish to buck the system that keeps either party funded. One would have to campaign on the same level as these parties' candidates, an undertaking on which millions of dollars are spent.
The very same obscenities to which jar referred in the OP have become pervasive in government. The almighty dollar runs the show and since We The People have less of those greenbacks, we may as well revise the Constitution to read: "We the Corporations." Legislation will not change, the Supreme Court was appointed by politicians with their hands in the till. The Justices are cut from the same cloth as the men that appointed them and the men that manufacture new legislation.
The Parties won't help, they are part of the problem, simply a guise to keep us picking the lesser of two evils, hoping we won't notice that they've both become the same thing. Their candidates spout different ideals that will never come about during their terms and they dole money out to different pet causes run by or affiliated with associates... but that's really the same isn't it, being mostly ineffectual and making your rich friends richer? If one was to have to pick between two pairs of briefs with skid marks in them and picked the one with less, that person would still be wearing soiled undies... crude analogy I suppose, but it seems to apply so well to our brand of politicians.
Until better regulation of campaign funding occurs and lobbyists are run out of DC with torches and pitchforks, I simply see our future as becoming more grim. People of the ilk of Peter Brabeck-Letmathe are at the helm of our government... Peter is the Chairman and former CEO of Nestle, the firebrand of water privatization who has stated publicly that the feels that access to water is not a public right.
Seems to me that the Government no longer derives it's power from the consent of the governed but from fear and complacency. In the current course of human events, no one would be able to stand up to the modern King George III and "his" tyranny, no one would dare dissolve these political bands; the king has become a warlord, commanding a force paid for by about a third of the world's total military expenditure and has been shown to have no qualms about using it against his own citizens, nor does he have reservations about collateral damage.

The simplest answer is to have those in authority take care of their constituents...as they ought. But as you so
aptly state,those in authority have already been bought out(and live in castles in the air).

The foxes now control the henhouse.


John

GING GING
November 7th, 2014, 10:25 PM
There is a fairly high proportion of Americans who believe the US has become an immoral society. I tend to agree with them but perhaps we might differ slightly on specifics of the Great Obscenities that characterize and define the USA today and so I thought it might be productive to present for discussion what I see as the Great Obscenities in the US.

The first is the idea that profit should be the primary motivator and driving force for innovation and the second is that the purpose of the education system should be to train and prepare workers.

I cannot think of many things that are more obscene, immoral and destructive than those two fallacies.

Next is the idea that a corporation is a person and that money is equivalent to speech.

Next is the fallacy that health care, utilities and services like police, prisons, fire, roads, bridges or communication systems should be unregulated and profit driven.

Finally, the idea that beliefs that are simply refuted by facts and reality should be respected. In particular, the Christian Cult of Ignorance (remember I am a Christian and so not denigrating all Christians) as seen in the US with their avoidance school systems should be recognized for just what it really is. They should be allowed to hold their beliefs as silly as they might be but not to insert those beliefs into government, education, social policy or law.

An interesting observation. In one thread you say a Satanic monument is a good idea. In this thread you talk about the moral decline of America.

jar
November 8th, 2014, 06:13 AM
There is a fairly high proportion of Americans who believe the US has become an immoral society. I tend to agree with them but perhaps we might differ slightly on specifics of the Great Obscenities that characterize and define the USA today and so I thought it might be productive to present for discussion what I see as the Great Obscenities in the US.

The first is the idea that profit should be the primary motivator and driving force for innovation and the second is that the purpose of the education system should be to train and prepare workers.

I cannot think of many things that are more obscene, immoral and destructive than those two fallacies.

Next is the idea that a corporation is a person and that money is equivalent to speech.

Next is the fallacy that health care, utilities and services like police, prisons, fire, roads, bridges or communication systems should be unregulated and profit driven.

Finally, the idea that beliefs that are simply refuted by facts and reality should be respected. In particular, the Christian Cult of Ignorance (remember I am a Christian and so not denigrating all Christians) as seen in the US with their avoidance school systems should be recognized for just what it really is. They should be allowed to hold their beliefs as silly as they might be but not to insert those beliefs into government, education, social policy or law.

An interesting observation. In one thread you say a Satanic monument is a good idea. In this thread you talk about the moral decline of America.

I'm not at all sure what possible connection there could be between those two observations but also I strongly doubt that I said a "a satanic monument is a good idea".

GING GING
November 8th, 2014, 06:25 AM
There is a fairly high proportion of Americans who believe the US has become an immoral society. I tend to agree with them but perhaps we might differ slightly on specifics of the Great Obscenities that characterize and define the USA today and so I thought it might be productive to present for discussion what I see as the Great Obscenities in the US.

The first is the idea that profit should be the primary motivator and driving force for innovation and the second is that the purpose of the education system should be to train and prepare workers.

I cannot think of many things that are more obscene, immoral and destructive than those two fallacies.

Next is the idea that a corporation is a person and that money is equivalent to speech.

Next is the fallacy that health care, utilities and services like police, prisons, fire, roads, bridges or communication systems should be unregulated and profit driven.

Finally, the idea that beliefs that are simply refuted by facts and reality should be respected. In particular, the Christian Cult of Ignorance (remember I am a Christian and so not denigrating all Christians) as seen in the US with their avoidance school systems should be recognized for just what it really is. They should be allowed to hold their beliefs as silly as they might be but not to insert those beliefs into government, education, social policy or law.

An interesting observation. In one thread you say a Satanic monument is a good idea. In this thread you talk about the moral decline of America.

I'm not at all sure what possible connection there could be between those two observations but also I strongly doubt that I said a "a satanic monument is a good idea".

Oh I'm not mad at ya. I just thought it was a neat observation. Actually, I stand corrected. You said a particular building was a good place for it. I misunderstood your context. Under that premise, I might tend to agree with you.

jar
November 8th, 2014, 06:33 AM
If we are to have Freedom of Religion in the US we must understand that does not mean Freedom of Religion as long as it is the Religion I support.

alc3261
November 8th, 2014, 06:37 AM
I fail to understand US views on Healthcare, Education and Gun Control but I'm not American so it is none of my business.

jar
November 8th, 2014, 06:44 AM
I fail to understand US views on Healthcare, Education and Gun Control but I'm not American so it is none of my business.

Well I am an American and a gun owner and I too fail to understand those things.

caribbean_skye
November 9th, 2014, 08:30 AM
I fail to understand US views on Healthcare, Education and Gun Control but I'm not American so it is none of my business.

I have lived in the US for the last 14 years, am not American and also fail to understand their views on these subjects (as well as a lot more).

JonV6
December 22nd, 2014, 07:39 AM
Being from the UK I still can't fully understand why the US healthcare system is profit driven and so expensive! The idea that there are people in one of the most developed countries in the world dying from something preventable just because they can't afford treatment is pretty hard to stomach. Add to that the privatisation of police forces, particularly armed response units, and you have something that it scarily close to a police state. The best of it is, if the current UK government has its way, we'll be in your shoes soon too!

jar
December 22nd, 2014, 07:50 AM
Being from the UK I still can't fully understand why the US healthcare system is profit driven and so expensive! The idea that there are people in one of the most developed countries in the world dying from something preventable just because they can't afford treatment is pretty hard to stomach. Add to that the privatisation of police forces, particularly armed response units, and you have something that it scarily close to a police state. The best of it is, if the current UK government has its way, we'll be in your shoes soon too!

How many families in the UK are forced into bankruptcy and to sell off all their assets because a family member got sick?

What about for profit education and even for profit public (US not UK sense) schools?

Crazyorange
December 22nd, 2014, 08:36 AM
Being from the UK I still can't fully understand why the US healthcare system is profit driven and so expensive! The idea that there are people in one of the most developed countries in the world dying from something preventable just because they can't afford treatment is pretty hard to stomach. Add to that the privatisation of police forces, particularly armed response units, and you have something that it scarily close to a police state. The best of it is, if the current UK government has its way, we'll be in your shoes soon too!

How many families in the UK are forced into bankruptcy and to sell off all their assets because a family member got sick?

What about for profit education and even for profit public (US not UK sense) schools?

I speak as an acupuncturist and someone who needs medical care. Our system is the pits. Yes, if your insurance covers something you'll get the care, that potentially would not be accessible to say UK patients. But you need to have amazing insurance to have that care. My wealthy clients have amazing insurance. The rest of us folks aren't so lucky. Someone's care needs to be denied for insurance companies to make a profit.

One part of our health care that gets my goat....getting approval/coverage from the insurance company....then getting denied after the care has been delivered. If retail stores treated us this way, Americans would be up in arms. Yet, no one blinks an eye...until it happens to them.

There's other facets to this topic I could rattle on about. Basically insurance has dumbed down our whole healthcare system.

johnus
December 22nd, 2014, 08:51 AM
Freedoms here in the USA have developed into the means to protect wealth. All you need to do is look at the recent decisions of the Supreme Court where Money and Monied Corporations are deemed to have the same or more Freedom of Speech as an Individual.
You also see in the Holly Hobby decision where the Monied's Freedom of Religion out weighs the employee right to law.

pengeezer
December 22nd, 2014, 10:05 AM
Freedoms here in the USA have developed into the means to protect wealth. All you need to do is look at the recent decisions of the Supreme Court where Money and Monied Corporations are deemed to have the same or more Freedom of Speech as an Individual.
You also see in the Holly Hobby decision where the Monied's Freedom of Religion out weighs the employee right to law.

You need to get your facts straight. 1st,the name of the company is Hobby Lobby; 2nd,the company provided other
forms of birth control other than the "morning after" pill. They had no problem with contraceptives;just that one that
causes abortion

With respect to your other statements,I wholeheartedly agree.


John

Laura N
December 22nd, 2014, 11:53 AM
Freedoms here in the USA have developed into the means to protect wealth. All you need to do is look at the recent decisions of the Supreme Court where Money and Monied Corporations are deemed to have the same or more Freedom of Speech as an Individual.
You also see in the Holly Hobby decision where the Monied's Freedom of Religion out weighs the employee right to law.

You need to get your facts straight. 1st,the name of the company is Hobby Lobby; 2nd,the company provided other
forms of birth control other than the "morning after" pill. They had no problem with contraceptives;just that one that
causes abortion

With respect to your other statements,I wholeheartedly agree.


John

No, you need to get your facts straight. Hobby Lobby did not have "no problem with contraceptives." Yes, Hobby Lobby objected to emergency contraceptive pills. Those are routinely prescribed in cases of rape, by the way. Rape is a crime, making a rape victim a crime victim, but I guess some find it easy to ignore all that. Hobby Lobby does not limit its (current) objection to Plan B and another morning-after pill. Hobby Lobby also objects to IUDs, which, in some cases, for some women, happen to be prescribed by their doctor as the safest and most effective form of birth control. In some cases it's the only appropriate contraceptive. The key phrase in what I have written is "by their doctors." A doctor and patient, together, privately deciding what is best for a patient's health. Imagine that.

Finally, and here's the best fact of all, Plan B does not really "cause abortion." If you'd like to look at medical science rather than propaganda, you can read this (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118547/facts-about-birth-control-and-hobby-lobby-ob-gyn) or this (http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html) or this (http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/plan-b) or this (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say) or this (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/may/does-plan-b-cause-abortion.html). Plan B prevents abortion.

pengeezer
December 24th, 2014, 08:17 AM
Freedoms here in the USA have developed into the means to protect wealth. All you need to do is look at the recent decisions of the Supreme Court where Money and Monied Corporations are deemed to have the same or more Freedom of Speech as an Individual.
You also see in the Holly Hobby decision where the Monied's Freedom of Religion out weighs the employee right to law.

You need to get your facts straight. 1st,the name of the company is Hobby Lobby; 2nd,the company provided other
forms of birth control other than the "morning after" pill. They had no problem with contraceptives;just that one that
causes abortion

With respect to your other statements,I wholeheartedly agree.


John

No, you need to get your facts straight. Hobby Lobby did not have "no problem with contraceptives." Yes, Hobby Lobby objected to emergency contraceptive pills. Those are routinely prescribed in cases of rape, by the way. Rape is a crime, making a rape victim a crime victim, but I guess some find it easy to ignore all that. Hobby Lobby does not limit its (current) objection to Plan B and another morning-after pill. Hobby Lobby also objects to IUDs, which, in some cases, for some women, happen to be prescribed by their doctor as the safest and most effective form of birth control. In some cases it's the only appropriate contraceptive. The key phrase in what I have written is "by their doctors." A doctor and patient, together, privately deciding what is best for a patient's health. Imagine that.

Finally, and here's the best fact of all, Plan B does not really "cause abortion." If you'd like to look at medical science rather than propaganda, you can read this (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118547/facts-about-birth-control-and-hobby-lobby-ob-gyn) or this (http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html) or this (http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/plan-b) or this (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say) or this (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/may/does-plan-b-cause-abortion.html). Plan B prevents abortion.


Thanks for the information.

Still,all the articles(except the last one--couldn't read the full article because a subscription was needed) indicate that Plan B,ella,Mirena and
Paraguard areabortives because the intent is to inhibit ovulation and/or fertilization. The intent of such things is so that
our lives aren't hampered by children that might cramp our lifestyle. As well,the owners of Hobby Lobby have the right to deny
the support or usage of those--after all it is their business.Their faith also dictates how their business is run,perhaps to the
disagreement of many.But it is their right to run their business as they choose.


I'd be interested in knowing what you call propaganda.



John


My apologies for the nearly full use of bold text--it wasn't intended. Only one word needed to be put in bold text.

mmahany
December 24th, 2014, 11:05 AM
Let's not forget that we are talking about a $20 one-time pill here (Plan B generic).

If you're that upset about the underlying issue, write to your congressman. After all, Hobby Lobby is simply acting within their rights outlined by government legislation.

Furthermore, there's not exactly a financial conflict of interest for Hobby Lobby. Not having kids actually saves them money on paying for dependent healthcare benefits.

Crazy thought, but if you feel that strongly about the lack of coverage for a $20 pill.....DON'T WORK AT HOBBY LOBBY AND/OR DON'T SHOP THERE.

reprieve
December 25th, 2014, 07:43 PM
Plan B,ella,Mirena and Paraguard are abortives because the intent is to inhibit ovulation and/or fertilization.

In that case, all forms of birth control are "abortives." The intent of every form of contraception--even condoms--is to inhibit fertilization.

pengeezer
December 26th, 2014, 05:44 AM
Plan B,ella,Mirena and Paraguard are abortives because the intent is to inhibit ovulation and/or fertilization.

In that case, all forms of birth control are "abortives." The intent of every form of contraception--even condoms--is to inhibit fertilization.


And in that point you are correct. The real issue,however--with respect to Hobby Lobby's owners--is the moral
choice of what they consider by their convictions to be wrong forms of contraception that would actually kill the embryo as well
as the premeditated intent for which it's being used. Along with that is the freedom that they have to say what they will and won't
accept as a contraceptive--again,it is their business.



John

jar
December 26th, 2014, 06:32 AM
Plan B,ella,Mirena and Paraguard are abortives because the intent is to inhibit ovulation and/or fertilization.

In that case, all forms of birth control are "abortives." The intent of every form of contraception--even condoms--is to inhibit fertilization.


And in that point you are correct. The real issue,however--with respect to Hobby Lobby's owners--is the moral
choice of what they consider by their convictions to be wrong forms of contraception that would actually kill the embryo as well
as the premeditated intent for which it's being used. Along with that is the freedom that they have to say what they will and won't
accept as a contraceptive--again,it is their business.



John

The fact that it is their business should be irrelevant.

Religious freedom and freedom of speech in the US are a limited personal right. If they believe using certain birth control methods are immoral they should be free to not use those methods but they have no right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

They have the right to say what they will and won't accept as a contraceptive but should have no right to try to impose their beliefs on their employees.

pengeezer
December 26th, 2014, 08:44 AM
Plan B,ella,Mirena and Paraguard are abortives because the intent is to inhibit ovulation and/or fertilization.

In that case, all forms of birth control are "abortives." The intent of every form of contraception--even condoms--is to inhibit fertilization.


And in that point you are correct. The real issue,however--with respect to Hobby Lobby's owners--is the moral
choice of what they consider by their convictions to be wrong forms of contraception that would actually kill the embryo as well
as the premeditated intent for which it's being used. Along with that is the freedom that they have to say what they will and won't
accept as a contraceptive--again,it is their business.



John

The fact that it is their business should be irrelevant.

Religious freedom and freedom of speech in the US are a limited personal right. If they believe using certain birth control methods are immoral they should be free to not use those methods but they have no right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

They have the right to say what they will and won't accept as a contraceptive but should have no right to try to impose their beliefs on their employees.


If it really rankles an employee,then they have two choices--they can put up with it,or they can find work elsewhere. It
is not their right to change an employer's standards that they set. Employees are not greater than their employer.



John

jar
December 26th, 2014, 09:05 AM
And in that point you are correct. The real issue,however--with respect to Hobby Lobby's owners--is the moral
choice of what they consider by their convictions to be wrong forms of contraception that would actually kill the embryo as well
as the premeditated intent for which it's being used. Along with that is the freedom that they have to say what they will and won't
accept as a contraceptive--again,it is their business.



John

The fact that it is their business should be irrelevant.

Religious freedom and freedom of speech in the US are a limited personal right. If they believe using certain birth control methods are immoral they should be free to not use those methods but they have no right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

They have the right to say what they will and won't accept as a contraceptive but should have no right to try to impose their beliefs on their employees.


If it really rankles an employee,then they have two choices--they can put up with it,or they can find work elsewhere. It
is not their right to change an employer's standards that they set. Employees are not greater than their employer.



John

Nonsense. An employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the law. The employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the employee's religious beliefs.

An employer may not discriminate based on race, sex, religious beliefs or national origin.

I can see no justification for them being exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

Crazyorange
December 26th, 2014, 09:58 AM
][/QUOTE]

Nonsense. An employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the law. The employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the employee's religious beliefs.

An employer may not discriminate based on race, sex, religious beliefs or national origin.

I can see no justification for them being exempt from anti-discrimination laws.[/QUOTE]

Here. Here. Well said.

mmahany
December 26th, 2014, 10:23 AM
The fact that it is their business should be irrelevant.

Religious freedom and freedom of speech in the US are a limited personal right. If they believe using certain birth control methods are immoral they should be free to not use those methods but they have no right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

They have the right to say what they will and won't accept as a contraceptive but should have no right to try to impose their beliefs on their employees.
Can you cite any specific evidence that proves Hobby Lobby imposed their beliefs on their employees or anyone else? Is there a section in the Hobby Lobby Employee Handbook that restricts employees from using birth control?



Nonsense. An employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the law. The employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the employee's religious beliefs.

An employer may not discriminate based on race, sex, religious beliefs or national origin.

I can see no justification for them being exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
I don’t believe anyone said or inferred anything to the contrary.

There does not seem to be any issue with Hobby Lobby imposing their beliefs on their employees (subject to any evidence that contradicts that statement).

The issue is whether or not Hobby Lobby should be financially obligated to support their employee’s beliefs (subject to any proof otherwise).

pengeezer
December 26th, 2014, 10:26 AM
And in that point you are correct. The real issue,however--with respect to Hobby Lobby's owners--is the moral
choice of what they consider by their convictions to be wrong forms of contraception that would actually kill the embryo as well
as the premeditated intent for which it's being used. Along with that is the freedom that they have to say what they will and won't
accept as a contraceptive--again,it is their business.



John

The fact that it is their business should be irrelevant.

Religious freedom and freedom of speech in the US are a limited personal right. If they believe using certain birth control methods are immoral they should be free to not use those methods but they have no right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

They have the right to say what they will and won't accept as a contraceptive but should have no right to try to impose their beliefs on their employees.


If it really rankles an employee,then they have two choices--they can put up with it,or they can find work elsewhere. It
is not their right to change an employer's standards that they set. Employees are not greater than their employer.



John

Nonsense. An employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the law. The employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the employee's religious beliefs.

An employer may not discriminate based on race, sex, religious beliefs or national origin.

I can see no justification for them being exempt from anti-discrimination laws.


If the employer's Christian beliefs--not religious--do not endanger those working for them,then their
choices used to start their business can stand. There is no discrimination--only choices.


John

jar
December 26th, 2014, 10:37 AM
Can you cite any specific evidence that proves Hobby Lobby imposed their beliefs on their employees or anyone else? Is there a section in the Hobby Lobby Employee Handbook that restricts employees from using birth control?



Nonsense. An employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the law. The employer's religious beliefs are not greater than the employee's religious beliefs.

An employer may not discriminate based on race, sex, religious beliefs or national origin.

I can see no justification for them being exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
I don’t believe anyone said or inferred anything to the contrary.

There does not seem to be any issue with Hobby Lobby imposing their beliefs on their employees (subject to any evidence that contradicts that statement).

The issue is whether or not Hobby Lobby should be financially obligated to support their employee’s beliefs (subject to any proof otherwise).

Nonsense.

That seems to be utter nonsense to me, more playing with words and palming the pea.

If the law says that an item should be covered then their religious beliefs have no value.

They do not get to redefine meanings to suit their bigotry.

pengeezer
December 26th, 2014, 10:37 AM
Consider it this way: Danzeman set up this forum for the purpose of allowing such discussion with the freedom
to discuss matters that can be heated at times(though rarely). Those of us that choose to participate do so by choice. None
of us are discriminated against and all topics are allowed. We are even warned at the beginning of the forum.

The same principle that applies to Hobby Lobby applies here and vice versa.


John

jar
December 26th, 2014, 10:40 AM
If the employer's Christian beliefs--not religious--do not endanger those working for them,then their
choices used to start their business can stand. There is no discrimination--only choices.


John

Now even more NewSpeak from the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

Christianity is a religion, to claim otherwise is simply dishonest.

Nor does endangerment have anything to do with the issue.

Discrimination is discrimination, bigotry is bigotry.

jar
December 26th, 2014, 11:08 AM
Consider it this way: Danzeman set up this forum for the purpose of allowing such discussion with the freedom
to discuss matters that can be heated at times(though rarely). Those of us that choose to participate do so by choice. None
of us are discriminated against and all topics are allowed. We are even warned at the beginning of the forum.

The same principle that applies to Hobby Lobby applies here and vice versa.


John

Well no, sorry but that is just another false statement.

Hobby Lobby owners are of course free to speak out and express their opinion, but a company is not free to discriminate.

This is a limited access discussion forum with an agreed set of rules. We can have discussion like this here but not at FPN because each are a voluntary association. None of use are employees.

But the Hobby Lobby issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech or religion.

As a business they need to follow the laws regardless of whether or not such laws run counter to their religious beliefs.

This is not anything new.

When I started out working in the Cable industry I was sent out to do an initial feasibility study of a town in South Carolin just outside of Charlotte, NC there was a big billboard that said "Nigger don't let the sun set on you here" and signed by the Sheriff. Now even if that reflected the strongly held religious beliefs of the Sheriff and the majority of the citizens it still did not stand.

Woolworth had an open policy of selling anything to both black and white clients with only one small exception; blacks could not sit and eat lunch at the counter. They could order food to go but not sit down at the counter. Now regardless of whether or not they were basing that position on religious beliefs it is still discrimination (they got smart and changed their position without being forced to under law by the way).

Hobby Lobby operates stores open to the general public. As such they are required to live by the law. If the law says a particular drug or procedure is contraceptives and that contraceptives should be covered under emplyee helth insurance then Hobby Lobby should not have the right to assert certain drugs or procedures are NOT contraceptives.

The owners religious beliefs are irrelevant.

mmahany
December 26th, 2014, 11:17 AM
Nonsense.

That seems to be utter nonsense to me, more playing with words and palming the pea.

If the law says that an item should be covered then their religious beliefs have no value.

They do not get to redefine meanings to suit their bigotry.
Apparently, they do get to redefine meanings because that’s exactly what happened earlier this year.

The Supreme Court ruled that their religious beliefs do, in fact, have value citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as justification.

So you can call it whatever you want. Honestly, “nonsense” isn’t a bad word for it.

Again, I’m not making this stuff up. It’s “The Law” as you so eloquently put it.

jar
December 26th, 2014, 11:29 AM
Nonsense.

That seems to be utter nonsense to me, more playing with words and palming the pea.

If the law says that an item should be covered then their religious beliefs have no value.

They do not get to redefine meanings to suit their bigotry.
Apparently, they do get to redefine meanings because that’s exactly what happened earlier this year.

The Supreme Court ruled that their religious beliefs do, in fact, have value citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as justification.

So you can call it whatever you want. Honestly, “nonsense” isn’t a bad word for it.

Again, I’m not making this stuff up. It’s “The Law” as you so eloquently put it.

Yup, just another of the Great Obscenities in the US today. Why is it not taught that we have become a Fascist State?

AbE:

Fortunately they based it on a Federal Law and those can be changed.

pengeezer
December 26th, 2014, 11:48 AM
Consider it this way: Danzeman set up this forum for the purpose of allowing such discussion with the freedom
to discuss matters that can be heated at times(though rarely). Those of us that choose to participate do so by choice. None
of us are discriminated against and all topics are allowed. We are even warned at the beginning of the forum.

The same principle that applies to Hobby Lobby applies here and vice versa.


John

Well no, sorry but that is just another false statement.

Hobby Lobby owners are of course free to speak out and express their opinion, but a company is not free to discriminate.

This is a limited access discussion forum with an agreed set of rules. We can have discussion like this here but not at FPN because each are a voluntary association. None of use are employees.

But the Hobby Lobby issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech or religion.

As a business they need to follow the laws regardless of whether or not such laws run counter to their religious beliefs.

This is not anything new.

When I started out working in the Cable industry I was sent out to do an initial feasibility study of a town in South Carolin just outside of Charlotte, NC there was a big billboard that said "Nigger don't let the sun set on you here" and signed by the Sheriff. Now even if that reflected the strongly held religious beliefs of the Sheriff and the majority of the citizens it still did not stand.

Woolworth had an open policy of selling anything to both black and white clients with only one small exception; blacks could not sit and eat lunch at the counter. They could order food to go but not sit down at the counter. Now regardless of whether or not they were basing that position on religious beliefs it is still discrimination (they got smart and changed their position without being forced to under law by the way).

Hobby Lobby operates stores open to the general public. As such they are required to live by the law. If the law says a particular drug or procedure is contraceptives and that contraceptives should be covered under emplyee helth insurance then Hobby Lobby should not have the right to assert certain drugs or procedures are NOT contraceptives.

The owners religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Nope--sorry,but it's not a false statement. It's based on principle,whether its liked or not.

You're right that the Hobby Lobby issue isn't based on freedom of speech or religion--it's based on convictions that they would give up
their business before they conceded Christian principle to public opinion.

Sad to say,but your examples are fallacious in that they exude obvious discrimination. The desire of Hobby Lobby's owners isn't--as I've
said,they would give up their business before giving up biblical principle.

BTW,while none of us are employees here,we are members and have agreed to abide by the rules.



John

jar
December 26th, 2014, 12:05 PM
Nope--sorry,but it's not a false statement. It's based on principle,whether its liked or not.

You're right that the Hobby Lobby issue isn't based on freedom of speech or religion--it's based on convictions that they would give up
their business before they conceded Christian principle to public opinion.

Sad to say,but your examples are fallacious in that they exude obvious discrimination. The desire of Hobby Lobby's owners isn't--as I've
said,they would give up their business before giving up biblical principle.

BTW,while none of us are employees here,we are members and have agreed to abide by the rules.



John

Biblical principles are religious beliefs.

They are discriminating based on their religious beliefs.

The 1993 "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" is as so often in the US today not a matter of restoring any freedoms but rather imposing yet more religious bigotry and oppression.

It is an example of continued NewSpeak and another obscenity.

As a Christian I will continue to boycott Hobby Lobby, encourage others to boycott Hobby Lobby and speak out against the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

reprieve
December 26th, 2014, 12:47 PM
If the employer's Christian beliefs--not religious--do not endanger those working for them,then their
choices used to start their business can stand. There is no discrimination--only choices.


You're right that the Hobby Lobby issue isn't based on freedom of speech or religion--it's based on convictions that they would give up their business before they conceded Christian principle to public opinion.

Sad to say,but your examples are fallacious in that they exude obvious discrimination. The desire of Hobby Lobby's owners isn't--as I've said,they would give up their business before giving up biblical principle.


In what way(s) are Christian beliefs not religious beliefs? In what way(s) are Christian principles not religious principles?


Imposing or attempting to impose one's religious beliefs/principles--whatever those may be--on one's employees does appear to me to constitute discrimination. See the EEOC's description of religious discrimination: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm.

jar
December 26th, 2014, 01:09 PM
In what way(s) are Christian beliefs not religious beliefs? In what way(s) are Christian principles not religious principles?


Imposing or attempting to impose one's religious beliefs/principles--whatever those may be--on one's employees does appear to me to constitute discrimination. See the EEOC's description of religious discrimination: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm.

As I have said, yet another of the Great Obscenities in the US today.

Really sad.

AbE: we are increasingly adopting just about all of the Fascist practices my parents fought save us from.

mmahany
December 26th, 2014, 03:01 PM
Yup, just another of the Great Obscenities in the US today. Why is it not taught that we have become a Fascist State?

AbE:

Fortunately they based it on a Federal Law and those can be changed.

Help me understand your rationale.

In this case, a family's religious beliefs were protected against government regulation and you find that fascist? In my opinion, that sounds exactly like THE OPPOSITE of fascism.

I challenge you to persuade me on this topic. I'm approaching this "discussion" with an open mind.

I will tell you that it's very easy to get me to admit I'm wrong. The only thing you need is factual evidence. Unfortunately, I see many strong opinions supported by only....more opinion.

To share my own opinion (even though it's irrelevant): I do not identify with the Christian church, nor am I against birth control in any way. However, I support any decision that protects my freedom to decide what I do or do not wish to believe in.

jar
December 26th, 2014, 03:13 PM
Yup, just another of the Great Obscenities in the US today. Why is it not taught that we have become a Fascist State?

AbE:

Fortunately they based it on a Federal Law and those can be changed.

Help me understand your rationale.

In this case, a family's religious beliefs were protected against government regulation and you find that fascist? In my opinion, that sounds exactly like THE OPPOSITE of fascism.

I challenge you to persuade me on this topic. I'm approaching this "discussion" with an open mind.

I will tell you that it's very easy to get me to admit I'm wrong. The only thing you need is factual evidence. Unfortunately, I see many strong opinions supported by only....more opinion.

To share my own opinion (even though it's irrelevant): I do not identify with the Christian church, nor am I against birth control in any way. However, I support any decision that protects my freedom to decide what I do or do not wish to believe in.

What you can believe in is not in question in the Hobby Lobby issue.

Do you even know what Fascism is?

pengeezer
December 26th, 2014, 04:17 PM
Yup, just another of the Great Obscenities in the US today. Why is it not taught that we have become a Fascist State?

AbE:

Fortunately they based it on a Federal Law and those can be changed.

Help me understand your rationale.

In this case, a family's religious beliefs were protected against government regulation and you find that fascist? In my opinion, that sounds exactly like THE OPPOSITE of fascism.

I challenge you to persuade me on this topic. I'm approaching this "discussion" with an open mind.

I will tell you that it's very easy to get me to admit I'm wrong. The only thing you need is factual evidence. Unfortunately, I see many strong opinions supported by only....more opinion.

To share my own opinion (even though it's irrelevant): I do not identify with the Christian church, nor am I against birth control in any way. However, I support any decision that protects my freedom to decide what I do or do not wish to believe in.


You have hit the nail on the head. It is about freedom of choice and not discrimination.



John

jar
December 26th, 2014, 04:32 PM
Yup, just another of the Great Obscenities in the US today. Why is it not taught that we have become a Fascist State?

AbE:

Fortunately they based it on a Federal Law and those can be changed.

Help me understand your rationale.

In this case, a family's religious beliefs were protected against government regulation and you find that fascist? In my opinion, that sounds exactly like THE OPPOSITE of fascism.

I challenge you to persuade me on this topic. I'm approaching this "discussion" with an open mind.

I will tell you that it's very easy to get me to admit I'm wrong. The only thing you need is factual evidence. Unfortunately, I see many strong opinions supported by only....more opinion.

To share my own opinion (even though it's irrelevant): I do not identify with the Christian church, nor am I against birth control in any way. However, I support any decision that protects my freedom to decide what I do or do not wish to believe in.


You have hit the nail on the head. It is about freedom of choice and not discrimination.



John

When it comes to business discrimination there is no such thing as freedom of choice. That is the same utter nonsense used to justify White only restrooms and fountains, bus seating, entrances, voting ...

mmahany
December 29th, 2014, 11:16 AM
The only thing you need is factual evidence. Unfortunately, I see many strong opinions supported by only....more opinion.




What you can believe in is not in question in the Hobby Lobby issue.
Do you even know what Fascism is?
Until you are able to satisfy my request above, I am unable to respond further.

I define “Discussions” and “Arguments” in similar ways, but with one key difference.
“Arguments” are exchanges of opinions between two or more parties.
“Discussions” are exchanges of opinions between two or more parties evidenced by facts.

I welcome the thought of continuing this exchange as a “discussion.” However, “arguments” are of no interest to me.

jar
December 29th, 2014, 12:41 PM
What you can believe in is not in question in the Hobby Lobby issue.
Do you even know what Fascism is?
Until you are able to satisfy my request above, I am unable to respond further.

I define “Discussions” and “Arguments” in similar ways, but with one key difference.
“Arguments” are exchanges of opinions between two or more parties.
“Discussions” are exchanges of opinions between two or more parties evidenced by facts.

I welcome the thought of continuing this exchange as a “discussion.” However, “arguments” are of no interest to me.

Okay. Have a nice day.

manoeuver
December 31st, 2014, 08:55 AM
Abortion, or anything abortion-related is just perfect. Even a little pill springs the trap.

The perfect subject to throw 8 pages of civil discussion completely off the rails.

The perfect red herring to keep people evenly divided and fighting endlessly, completely distracted while they're robbed blind.

ugh.

stevekolt
December 31st, 2014, 09:02 AM
Jar,
Seems to me that a person has a choice to either work for a company or not. If the company doesn't provide the benefits that the employee wants, they don't have to take the job. They are not basing their employment practices on race, religion, etc. To equate this with Jim Crow/segregationist laws is a pretty far stretch, as all your examples deal with publicly owned entities/utilities/services. If a privately owned kosher restaurant is closed on Friday night/Saturday, or refuses to make a bacon cheeseburger, shoulld anybody be allowed to tell them that they must do those things even though they are contrary to their religious beliefs?

jar
December 31st, 2014, 09:23 AM
Jar,
Seems to me that a person has a choice to either work for a company or not. If the company doesn't provide the benefits that the employee wants, they don't have to take the job. They are not basing their employment practices on race, religion, etc. To equate this with Jim Crow/segregationist laws is a pretty far stretch, as all your examples deal with publicly owned entities/utilities/services. If a privately owned kosher restaurant is closed on Friday night/Saturday, or refuses to make a bacon cheeseburger, shoulld anybody be allowed to tell them that they must do those things even though they are contrary to their religious beliefs?

Yes. Religious beliefs should be irrelevant when it comes to companies. Companies cannot have religious beliefs.

stevekolt
December 31st, 2014, 11:45 AM
Jar,
Seems to me that a person has a choice to either work for a company or not. If the company doesn't provide the benefits that the employee wants, they don't have to take the job. They are not basing their employment practices on race, religion, etc. To equate this with Jim Crow/segregationist laws is a pretty far stretch, as all your examples deal with publicly owned entities/utilities/services. If a privately owned kosher restaurant is closed on Friday night/Saturday, or refuses to make a bacon cheeseburger, shoulld anybody be allowed to tell them that they must do those things even though they are contrary to their religious beliefs?

Yes. Religious beliefs should be irrelevant when it comes to companies. Companies cannot have religious beliefs.

However, owners of privately held companies can. Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays, as is Chick-Fil-A. Being in their employ means you don't work on those days even if you would choose to.

jar
December 31st, 2014, 12:59 PM
Jar,
Seems to me that a person has a choice to either work for a company or not. If the company doesn't provide the benefits that the employee wants, they don't have to take the job. They are not basing their employment practices on race, religion, etc. To equate this with Jim Crow/segregationist laws is a pretty far stretch, as all your examples deal with publicly owned entities/utilities/services. If a privately owned kosher restaurant is closed on Friday night/Saturday, or refuses to make a bacon cheeseburger, shoulld anybody be allowed to tell them that they must do those things even though they are contrary to their religious beliefs?

Yes. Religious beliefs should be irrelevant when it comes to companies. Companies cannot have religious beliefs.

However, owners of privately held companies can. Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays, as is Chick-Fil-A. Being in their employ means you don't work on those days even if you would choose to.

And I believe that is obscene. I am not opposed to companies being closed but I am opposed if it is based on religious beliefs.

A company being closed is a far cry though from denying health care based on religious beliefs.

stevekolt
December 31st, 2014, 08:34 PM
And abortion, abortifacients, and contraceptives are a far cry from "health care." So you feel that a person is not allowed to do what they want with their own property if it is influenced by religion? The Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion," not "freedom from religion." If you own a private company/business it is your right to open or close as you see fit. Thankfully, your "belief" is of no consequence.

jar
January 1st, 2015, 06:08 AM
And abortion, abortifacients, and contraceptives are a far cry from "health care." So you feel that a person is not allowed to do what they want with their own property if it is influenced by religion? The Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion," not "freedom from religion." If you own a private company/business it is your right to open or close as you see fit. Thankfully, your "belief" is of no consequence.


Of course abortion, abortifacients, and contraceptives are health care and you do understand that it was Christians, primarily Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Episcopalians that lead the fight to decriminalize abortion in the US and to make it legal.

The Constitution does not guarantee any right to impose your religious beliefs on others and in fact the First Amendment was introduced precisely to prevent Christian tyranny and oppression.

If an owner of a company believes handicaps are God's punishment on sinners they must still provide handicap access. Owning a company does not give anyone the right to discriminate based on race, religion, sex or national origin.

Nor is anyone being denied any freedom of religion. If the owner of the business objects to abortion, abortifacients, and contraceptives the owner of the business is free to not have an abortion or use abortifacients and contraceptives. The owner of the business is not allowed to impose his or her religious beliefs on anyone else.

I doubt a reasonable person would ever get more than mildly upset should a business close for a religious reason or not serve bacon burgers but that is only because those are really trivial issues; but denying health care is not just a trivial issue.

Religious folk are still free to express opinions and to worship as they think proper. They should not be allowed to impose their beliefs on others.

stevekolt
January 1st, 2015, 08:22 AM
This will be my last comment on this. The Constitution guarantees your right to religious expression. You are attempting to obfuscate the parameters of the argument. Not providing for certain medicines or procedures in a private companies benefit package is not imposing their religious beliefs on an employee. The employee is free to either pay for their own, or seek employment that does provide the coverage they desire. The company is not discriminating based on any class or section of the population. If they provided these services for one group, but not others, that would be discrimination.

In an earlier post you said you thought it was "obscene" to base any business decisions on the religious beliefs of the owners of the company. Neither one of us is going to win the other over to our point of view. I'm just glad that the Constitution is on my side.

jar
January 1st, 2015, 10:29 AM
This will be my last comment on this. The Constitution guarantees your right to religious expression. You are attempting to obfuscate the parameters of the argument. Not providing for certain medicines or procedures in a private companies benefit package is not imposing their religious beliefs on an employee. The employee is free to either pay for their own, or seek employment that does provide the coverage they desire. The company is not discriminating based on any class or section of the population. If they provided these services for one group, but not others, that would be discrimination.

In an earlier post you said you thought it was "obscene" to base any business decisions on the religious beliefs of the owners of the company. Neither one of us is going to win the other over to our point of view. I'm just glad that the Constitution is on my side.

But the Constitution is not on your side, Thank God. In fact the recent SCOTUS decision did not use the Constitution as its base but rather the obscenity called the Religious Restitution Act.

reprieve
January 1st, 2015, 12:47 PM
The company is not discriminating based on any class or section of the population. If they provided these services for one group, but not others, that would be discrimination.

Apparently the owners of Hobby Lobby do not object to covering male employees' vasectomies nor do they object to paying for Viagra. Female employees are subject to restricted health benefits while male employees are not.

pengeezer
January 1st, 2015, 04:50 PM
The company is not discriminating based on any class or section of the population. If they provided these services for one group, but not others, that would be discrimination.

Apparently the owners of Hobby Lobby do not object to covering male employees' vasectomies nor do they object to paying for Viagra. Female employees are subject to restricted health benefits while male employees are not.

While it may seem contradictory,having a vasectomy isn't killing an embryo. Neither does Viagra. Their choice wasn't
about discrimination,only murder.


John

jar
January 1st, 2015, 05:07 PM
Their choice wasn't about discrimination,only murder.


John

When you use terms like "murder" related to a birth control choice how can anyone possibly take anything you say seriously or do anything more than laugh.

No abortion is murder. Now I understand part of the Christian Cult of Ignorance NewSpeak would like people to think that is true, it simply is another falsehood like saying they are "ProLife"..

Murder is a very special case and can only be determined in a court of law. Now they might think abortion is murder but that is just another example of their ignorance.

pengeezer
January 2nd, 2015, 03:40 PM
Their choice wasn't about discrimination,only murder.


John

When you use terms like "murder" related to a birth control choice how can anyone possibly take anything you say seriously or do anything more than laugh.

No abortion is murder. Now I understand part of the Christian Cult of Ignorance NewSpeak would like people to think that is true, it simply is another falsehood like saying they are "ProLife"..

Murder is a very special case and can only be determined in a court of law. Now they might think abortion is murder but that is just another example of their ignorance.

What I say may not be taken seriously(and you probably don't),but it is what it is.



John

jar
January 2nd, 2015, 05:21 PM
Their choice wasn't about discrimination,only murder.


John

When you use terms like "murder" related to a birth control choice how can anyone possibly take anything you say seriously or do anything more than laugh.

No abortion is murder. Now I understand part of the Christian Cult of Ignorance NewSpeak would like people to think that is true, it simply is another falsehood like saying they are "ProLife"..

Murder is a very special case and can only be determined in a court of law. Now they might think abortion is murder but that is just another example of their ignorance.

What I say may not be taken seriously(and you probably don't),but it is what it is.



John

But what abortion is is NOT murder. Calling it murder may simply be ignorance, or delusion but in many cases it is simply dishonesty.

Mullen88
January 4th, 2015, 03:20 PM
Great Post.

Just a couple of things I'd like to add.

USA, A Silent Dictatorship.

If you read into history you will find that the Ancient Greeks (the inventors of democracy) had a system for their government officials which aided in the avoidance of personal interests being pursued over the interests of the population. This system helped the civilization by prohibiting family succession and limiting the amount of years of service one could attain. They recognized, through experience I'm sure, that if a son or brother takes over in office his motives and actions will be persuaded by his families interests, and not the interests of the people. The latter being the main instigation for a governmental system.

The USA boasts a democracy but since the 80's I can't help but notice a family oriented trend. Dictatorships support family succession! Democracies don't. How many Bush's and Clinton's will be forced onto the ballots! And why doesn't the population say something about it. Clearly the United States has passed through the idea of democracy and settled on an age old tactic - Those in power stay in power, and are there for the interests of the powerful - without even an inkling of an uprising from its population. The two party system does not work... there are a lot more issues and views that need to be addressed than are being addressed, and the mindset of "Republican" of "Democrat" is as old as "Presbyterian" or "Catholic". These leaders are spending your tax dollars over seas when 70% of your bridges in the USA are in desperate need of repair. They spend more money on their campaign than spent on education. Sickening. And when someone gets into office no one tries to work with them, the other party spends its time critisizing and starting arguments when they should be working together to find a solution for the PEOPLE. Respect your leaders, whether you voted for them or not!

Please read the writings of your forefathers and compare their ideals and beliefs to what America has become. In most cases it is the exact opposite of what they wanted. Thomas Jefferson absolutely hated the idea of a central bank and I think if he saw what has become of the USA he would be disgusted.

Anyways, couple things to think about.

Is America really a Democracy, or a Silent Dictatorship?

Where are your tax dollars being spent? And why?

Are the structures and bridges in America Safe?

How many people would get shot if not everyone had a gun?

What would America's forefathers say about the state of the country they loved so dearly?

Why are so many of our troops and dollars in other countries?

If a foreign land's army came into the USA and told them how to live would you accept or resent their efforts? Isn't that what your doing overseas?

Anyways, just some thoughts on the state of affairs in today's world. Please read with an open mind. and always question authority! Try to find the motives behind their madness. If you can't find one, follow the money trail. It's there.

And Please no Bush or Clinton in 2016!!!!! Open your eyes America. 300 million people with two families interests' in stride.

Thank you kindly,
Sean.

jar
January 4th, 2015, 03:39 PM
Some interesting and I think relevant quotes from Theodore Roosevelt:


"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

"Now, this means that our government, national and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. Every special interest is entitled to justice -full, fair, and complete -and, now, mind you, if there were any attempt by mob-violence to plunder and work harm to the special interest, whatever it may be, and I most dislike and the wealthy man, whomsoever he may be, for whom I have the greatest contempt, I would fight for him, and you would if you were worth your salt. He should have justice. For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protections to property, and we must make that promise good But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation. The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being."

"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done."

"We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and specially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs."
Theodore Roosevelt

manoeuver
January 8th, 2015, 10:14 AM
I believe we would have been well served by a wall of separation between Business and State. The Founders' most egregious oversight.

TSherbs
March 16th, 2015, 12:33 PM
The company is not discriminating based on any class or section of the population. If they provided these services for one group, but not others, that would be discrimination.

Apparently the owners of Hobby Lobby do not object to covering male employees' vasectomies nor do they object to paying for Viagra. Female employees are subject to restricted health benefits while male employees are not.

While it may seem contradictory,having a vasectomy isn't killing an embryo. Neither does Viagra. Their choice wasn't
about discrimination,only murder.


John

Not in the eyes of the law. Of course, according to the Catholic Church (and some Protestant groups), impeding the sperm from naturally reaching the ovum is, through whatever means, a grave sin (contrary to the Law of God). On these grounds, men should be denied any monies for services related to prevention of conception.

HughC
March 22nd, 2015, 04:40 PM
Religious doctrine ingrained in politics can produce some strange and illogical decisions. Ireland is one such example where abortion is illegal, so paranoid about it that at least one pregnant women was denied a life saving abortion ( of an infected fetus that had to die before removal and blood poisoning killed her ). There are countless examples in Muslim countries of women who have been raped charged with having sex outside marriage, how logic defying is that ? Decisions such as the Hobby Lobby one would appear to be a very unwelcome one that makes the next step towards religious dominated politics easier.

Regards
Hugh

stevekolt
March 22nd, 2015, 07:50 PM
Why is this politics? And it is certainly nothing like either of your examples HughC. This is a private company deciding what/what not to provide in their insurance coverage for their employees. I have congenital, severe bilateral hearing loss. Only one year in my entire working history did my employer offer any kind of coverage. If It was a make or break point for me I would have tried to find a job that did provide the coverage. This is a PRIVATE entity, not a political one.
Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sundays, Kosher restaurants, and businesses owned by observant Jews are closed from sundown Friday, through sundown Saturday. As private entities they are entitled to do so, just as Hobby Lobby is entitled to their business decisions. Don't like it? Spend your money elsewhere. If Sunday is your favored day to work, don't take a job at a business that is closed on that day. And if you want insurance coverage that your employer does not choose to provide, get a job elsewhere.

jar
March 22nd, 2015, 08:11 PM
Why is this politics? And it is certainly nothing like either of your examples HughC. This is a private company deciding what/what not to provide in their insurance coverage for their employees. I have congenital, severe bilateral hearing loss. Only one year in my entire working history did my employer offer any kind of coverage. If It was a make or break point for me I would have tried to find a job that did provide the coverage. This is a PRIVATE entity, not a political one.
Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sundays, Kosher restaurants, and businesses owned by observant Jews are closed from sundown Friday, through sundown Saturday. As private entities they are entitled to do so, just as Hobby Lobby is entitled to their business decisions. Don't like it? Spend your money elsewhere. If Sunday is your favored day to work, don't take a job at a business that is closed on that day. And if you want insurance coverage that your employer does not choose to provide, get a job elsewhere.

Other than the fact that it really is an obscene policy it is also directed at a particular sex.

Yes, a very good option is to spend money elsewhere but thankfully in the US we can also speak out against bigotry.

HughC
March 22nd, 2015, 09:56 PM
Why is this politics? And it is certainly nothing like either of your examples HughC. This is a private company deciding what/what not to provide in their insurance coverage for their employees. I have congenital, severe bilateral hearing loss. Only one year in my entire working history did my employer offer any kind of coverage. If It was a make or break point for me I would have tried to find a job that did provide the coverage. This is a PRIVATE entity, not a political one.
Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sundays, Kosher restaurants, and businesses owned by observant Jews are closed from sundown Friday, through sundown Saturday. As private entities they are entitled to do so, just as Hobby Lobby is entitled to their business decisions. Don't like it? Spend your money elsewhere. If Sunday is your favored day to work, don't take a job at a business that is closed on that day. And if you want insurance coverage that your employer does not choose to provide, get a job elsewhere.


A Supreme Court judgement supported the companies right to act as it has, ie enforce the religious belief of the owners on their employees regarding health care, and not based on medical opinion. Why is it potentially political? The laws in Ireland are driven by religious beliefs, ie they drive a number of political decisions. Each religiously inspired act of discrimination that wins court approval slowly changes the values of the law and by default the political ground changes to accepting such actions as fair and reasonable. That's why these sort of decisions have political ramifications. In the Hobby Lobby case their position is not supported by medical fact nor does it address the employees right to options a doctor may recommend. Do you want that rational embedded in US society especially given the high cost of health insurance?

Few would argue with the right of a private business to observe the religious practices of the owners to meet their religious obligations, that's not an issue but this was not a business decision by Hobby Lobby and it's not their religious obligation to enforce their views on employees in a discriminatory fashion, which providing vasectomies and viagra ( ?) to male employees while excluding an I.U.D. that prevents a pregnancy for female employees does. This is now an acceptable practice that any company can use.

Given it's an anti abortion action by Hobby Lobby it's bound to generate strong opinions, the right to have or not have an abortion ( and medical opinion is that what Hobby Lobby excluded does not constitute abortion anyway) is more a state issue ( political) than a business one.

Enough of these decisions and slowly the political climate changes to reflect them, that's why it's a slow progressive move to non secular government.

dneal
March 23rd, 2015, 05:14 AM
Is Hobby Lobby or it's owners enforcing their beliefs on their employees? The employee may still purchase contraceptive devices or obtain an abortion. Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for it, because it runs counter to their own beliefs. I think it's an important distinction, regardless of which side one sympathizes with.

stevekolt
March 23rd, 2015, 05:40 AM
dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

pengeezer
March 23rd, 2015, 10:00 AM
dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.


Agreed. A private company can choose how it sets up its employe insurance and the employees(or future employees)
can make their decision if they feel that they want to have an abortion. They just can't tell their employer that they
have to provide abortion coverage. And that is the right of the employer to not provide that coverage.



John

HughC
March 23rd, 2015, 03:13 PM
dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.


Agreed. A private company can choose how it sets up its employe insurance and the employees(or future employees)
can make their decision if they feel that they want to have an abortion. They just can't tell their employer that they
have to provide abortion coverage. And that is the right of the employer to not provide that coverage.



John

John.

The issue was about contraception not abortion, the claim the methods in question where a form of abortion are not supported by medical opinion. The other point is this is about opting out of the requirements of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) which sets the standard for provided coverage which is a legal requirement. The standard is simply a reflection of the general communities health needs.

Regards
Hugh

HughC
March 23rd, 2015, 03:14 PM
dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

No it wasn't, what you argued was that it's okay to discriminate on religious belief.

HughC
March 23rd, 2015, 03:57 PM
Is Hobby Lobby or it's owners enforcing their beliefs on their employees? The employee may still purchase contraceptive devices or obtain an abortion. Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for it, because it runs counter to their own beliefs. I think it's an important distinction, regardless of which side one sympathizes with.

The answer is yes because they won under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The abortion part is a straw man in a lot of ways, at present pregnancy ( by definition) begins when a fertilized egg implant in the uterus lining and the 4 methods under question are designed to prevent ovulation or fertilization not remove an implanted egg. Clearly other methods are still available through the health plan but if they cause a problem or medical advice suggests an I.U.D. then you're discriminated (financially disadvantaged) against by being denied an option available to others in the private sector covered by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 .

I think it's an issue that Hobby Lobby and the medical profession differ in what defines a pregnancy. How can Plan B which inhibits ovulation be any different to a regular contraceptive pill ? The religious belief and fact are different, being given legal protection for false beliefs at the expense of fact is , as Jar would say, an obscenity.

We all either do or have previously discriminated against others because of race ,religion or "whatever" at some point, sometimes without even realizing. I certainly accept discrimination will always exist but I think the less the better. I think the Hobby Lobby outcome goes against that and it also opens the way for more actions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that could discriminate. If the majority of people in the US wish to have a greater religious base in their legal system ( and hence political system) then so be it, if the majority don't they need to ensure it doesn't occur by stealth. The US (and Australia but as much ) has a dark past of discrimination, the attempts to achieve anything like a true democracy have progressed so I wonder why anyone would embrace turning back the clock as acceptable.

stevekolt
March 23rd, 2015, 05:43 PM
dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

No it wasn't, what you argued was that it's okay to discriminate on religious belief.

No, what I argued was that it was an employers right to decide what benefit/group of benefits they want to provide to their employees. It is their privately held company. I would feel the same if they chose to provide abortifacients. I would disagree with their decision, but it would be legal, and as a private company, it should be their right to make that decision.

HughC
March 23rd, 2015, 06:51 PM
dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

No it wasn't, what you argued was that it's okay to discriminate on religious belief.

No, what I argued was that it was an employers right to decide what benefit/group of benefits they want to provide to their employees. It is their privately held company. I would feel the same if they chose to provide abortifacients. I would disagree with their decision, but it would be legal, and as a private company, it should be their right to make that decision.

They wanted to not provide what the Department of Health and Human Services stated they should, their legal obligation at that time. You argued it was perfectly okay to not provide the legal minimum standard because of religious belief, a religious belief that was then used to discriminate against some people. It is not an "employers right to decide" but a legal obligation to provide a certain standard. A wealthy country like the US should be able to provide adequate, affordable healthcare to it's citizens and the same minimum standard should apply to all ( that it doesn't is a major failure ), that you have certain companies trying ( and succeeding) in altering that standard downwards and in a discriminatory way should be viewed as a retrograde step even more so when not fact based.

This is where a national health scheme run by Government is an alternative worth consideration as it removes this type of issue from the workplace and away from the influence of extreme ideology.

stevekolt
March 23rd, 2015, 07:38 PM
Here is a major point we certainly disagree on. The government should not be deciding what benefits a private employer provides. If it is a governmental entity, they would/should have the right to decide. The founders would be incredulous over the extended reach of our government. As I said earlier, my employers did not provide for hearing aid coverage. I chose to be their employee. That did not give me the right to demand they pay for my (needed) hearing aids. I also take exception to the categorization of "extreme ideology". My only belief involved here is the issue of what one may do with their own company. If I don't agree with a companies policy about anything, I have the right to not work for them, and not spend my money for their product or services. I most certainly do not have the right to demand benefits they don't offer.

pengeezer
March 23rd, 2015, 08:27 PM
dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.


Agreed. A private company can choose how it sets up its employe insurance and the employees(or future employees)
can make their decision if they feel that they want to have an abortion. They just can't tell their employer that they
have to provide abortion coverage. And that is the right of the employer to not provide that coverage.



John

John.

The issue was about contraception not abortion, the claim the methods in question where a form of abortion are not supported by medical opinion. The other point is this is about opting out of the requirements of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) which sets the standard for provided coverage which is a legal requirement. The standard is simply a reflection of the general communities health needs.

Regards
Hugh




Hugh,I respect your right to think and feel as you do,but the gist of the entire court case was about the right of
a private company to provide or not provide health care as it chooses,not contraception/abortion. The owners of
Hobby Lobby chose to not have certain types of health care for women,but they didn't tell any of their female em-
ployees that they couldn't go out and get an abortion. It was their choice to make up their health insurance as they
chose--even on biblical grounds. It is the principle of allowing privately-held companies to do as they chose,whether
someone else likes that choice or not,as long as their employees are adequately provided for. As Steve said,the em-
ployees do not get to tell the employer what they can and can't do.



John

HughC
March 23rd, 2015, 08:41 PM
The Government did, whether they should or not is a different matter as is what that should cover. I'm sorry you take offense to the words "extreme ideology" , it simply means outside the expected norm and in this case as their claim has no medical basis it probably fits. Every company has to act within the law, you don't actually have a total freedom of choice so that's a strawman, try deciding not to pay tax for some reason. If your going to have a scheme it needs minimum standards, that should be obvious. Obamacare goes a long way to providing a decent affordable health care system to all regardless.

How do you expect people on low wages or socially disadvantaged to be afforded adequate healthcare ? The US is a rich country yet around 50 million people can't afford health cover , how many die every year from preventable causes? And you want to lower and remove health cover to even more people !! You need to look at "the big picture" , do you really believe the Founders would think letting people die because they where poor as acceptable? Adequate health care should be viewed as a public issue of great importance and that's what the US Government is trying to achieve, they could just tax businesses instead of requiring them to provide coverage but in the end it's the same result. Still while it does there is a minimum standard that has to be met and eroding that should be avoided especially when it's discriminatory.

A lot of people don't have a job choice, they take what they get because there's no option.

HughC
March 23rd, 2015, 10:50 PM
dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.


Agreed. A private company can choose how it sets up its employe insurance and the employees(or future employees)
can make their decision if they feel that they want to have an abortion. They just can't tell their employer that they
have to provide abortion coverage. And that is the right of the employer to not provide that coverage.



John

John.

The issue was about contraception not abortion, the claim the methods in question where a form of abortion are not supported by medical opinion. The other point is this is about opting out of the requirements of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) which sets the standard for provided coverage which is a legal requirement. The standard is simply a reflection of the general communities health needs.

Regards
Hugh




Hugh,I respect your right to think and feel as you do,but the gist of the entire court case was about the right of
a private company to provide or not provide health care as it chooses,not contraception/abortion. The owners of
Hobby Lobby chose to not have certain types of health care for women,but they didn't tell any of their female em-
ployees that they couldn't go out and get an abortion. It was their choice to make up their health insurance as they
chose--even on biblical grounds. It is the principle of allowing privately-held companies to do as they chose,whether
someone else likes that choice or not,as long as their employees are adequately provided for. As Steve said,the em-
ployees do not get to tell the employer what they can and can't do.



John

Hi John,

I'm well aware of your beliefs, no surprise you would disagree with my view !! Still "tossing around" varying opinions ( whether we agree or not) is generally a worthwhile effort in understanding counter viewpoints and their reasoning. The case won on the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

From Cornell:
At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,” 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.

As you will read it wasn't a choice the employer could make but a legal obligation, an obligation they chose not to meet. Nor is it a case of the employee telling the business, it's the Government. Businesses operate within the law, this notion of the "owner can do what he wants because it's his" only applies within the legal framework and requirements that have to be met. Female employees of Hobby Lobby now have less coverage than those working for other companies, they have been discriminated against by the religious beliefs of someone else. It has nothing to do with what a person may chose to pay for themselves in regard to health/medical issue but the use of religious ideology create a discriminatory position. In this case the Court found it acceptable. To deny a woman the cover for an IUD if no other option was suitable on religious grounds is , to me, a terrible injustice. Now you will see various other case based on this ruling, some will succeed, some will fail and the cover provided decline and discrimination based on religious beliefs will possibly increase.

dneal
March 24th, 2015, 12:17 AM
Is Hobby Lobby or it's owners enforcing their beliefs on their employees? The employee may still purchase contraceptive devices or obtain an abortion. Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for it, because it runs counter to their own beliefs. I think it's an important distinction, regardless of which side one sympathizes with.

The answer is yes because they won under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The abortion part is a straw man in a lot of ways, at present pregnancy ( by definition) begins when a fertilized egg implant in the uterus lining and the 4 methods under question are designed to prevent ovulation or fertilization not remove an implanted egg. Clearly other methods are still available through the health plan but if they cause a problem or medical advice suggests an I.U.D. then you're discriminated (financially disadvantaged) against by being denied an option available to others in the private sector covered by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 .

I think it's an issue that Hobby Lobby and the medical profession differ in what defines a pregnancy. How can Plan B which inhibits ovulation be any different to a regular contraceptive pill ? The religious belief and fact are different, being given legal protection for false beliefs at the expense of fact is , as Jar would say, an obscenity.

We all either do or have previously discriminated against others because of race ,religion or "whatever" at some point, sometimes without even realizing. I certainly accept discrimination will always exist but I think the less the better. I think the Hobby Lobby outcome goes against that and it also opens the way for more actions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that could discriminate. If the majority of people in the US wish to have a greater religious base in their legal system ( and hence political system) then so be it, if the majority don't they need to ensure it doesn't occur by stealth. The US (and Australia but as much ) has a dark past of discrimination, the attempts to achieve anything like a true democracy have progressed so I wonder why anyone would embrace turning back the clock as acceptable.

I don't believe your conclusion (paraphrased as "Yes, Hobby Lobby did enforce its owners' beliefs on their employees") is supported by your argument. The comments on the definition of pregnancy and discrimination are distractors to the central question. The fact still stands that the employee is free to believe how they wish, and purchase contraception or abortions as they wish.





dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

No it wasn't, what you argued was that it's okay to discriminate on religious belief.

No, what I argued was that it was an employers right to decide what benefit/group of benefits they want to provide to their employees. It is their privately held company. I would feel the same if they chose to provide abortifacients. I would disagree with their decision, but it would be legal, and as a private company, it should be their right to make that decision.

They wanted to not provide what the Department of Health and Human Services stated they should, their legal obligation at that time. You argued it was perfectly okay to not provide the legal minimum standard because of religious belief, a religious belief that was then used to discriminate against some people. It is not an "employers right to decide" but a legal obligation to provide a certain standard. A wealthy country like the US should be able to provide adequate, affordable healthcare to it's citizens and the same minimum standard should apply to all ( that it doesn't is a major failure ), that you have certain companies trying ( and succeeding) in altering that standard downwards and in a discriminatory way should be viewed as a retrograde step even more so when not fact based.

This is where a national health scheme run by Government is an alternative worth consideration as it removes this type of issue from the workplace and away from the influence of extreme ideology.

The Supreme Court agreed that Hobby Lobby was correct, and that they had no legal obligation to provide certain benefits to their employees. What the law said at the time is irrelevant, since citizens (and corporations) have the right to challenge laws they find to be wrong.

Claims of discrimination are a red herring. No employee of Hobby Lobby has those items funded by the employer. That is an equal standard for all employees.

What a wealthy country like the U.S. "should" be able to provide is also irrelevant.


The Government did, whether they should or not is a different matter as is what that should cover. I'm sorry you take offense to the words "extreme ideology" , it simply means outside the expected norm and in this case as their claim has no medical basis it probably fits. Every company has to act within the law, you don't actually have a total freedom of choice so that's a strawman, try deciding not to pay tax for some reason. If your going to have a scheme it needs minimum standards, that should be obvious. Obamacare goes a long way to providing a decent affordable health care system to all regardless.

How do you expect people on low wages or socially disadvantaged to be afforded adequate healthcare ? The US is a rich country yet around 50 million people can't afford health cover , how many die every year from preventable causes? And you want to lower and remove health cover to even more people !! You need to look at "the big picture" , do you really believe the Founders would think letting people die because they where poor as acceptable? Adequate health care should be viewed as a public issue of great importance and that's what the US Government is trying to achieve, they could just tax businesses instead of requiring them to provide coverage but in the end it's the same result. Still while it does there is a minimum standard that has to be met and eroding that should be avoided especially when it's discriminatory.

A lot of people don't have a job choice, they take what they get because there's no option.

You seem to emphasize what the Government did, and what the law said, before the USSC judgement; but ignore the fact that the USSC has determined what is in fact legal in the overarching context of the United States Constitution.

The rest is an appeal to emotion, i.e.: "It's for the children!!!" If you are going to assert what the Founders would have thought, perhaps you could cite some of them remarking on the notion of a Federal level welfare system. I suspect you won't find it.






dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.


Agreed. A private company can choose how it sets up its employe insurance and the employees(or future employees)
can make their decision if they feel that they want to have an abortion. They just can't tell their employer that they
have to provide abortion coverage. And that is the right of the employer to not provide that coverage.



John

John.

The issue was about contraception not abortion, the claim the methods in question where a form of abortion are not supported by medical opinion. The other point is this is about opting out of the requirements of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) which sets the standard for provided coverage which is a legal requirement. The standard is simply a reflection of the general communities health needs.

Regards
Hugh




Hugh,I respect your right to think and feel as you do,but the gist of the entire court case was about the right of
a private company to provide or not provide health care as it chooses,not contraception/abortion. The owners of
Hobby Lobby chose to not have certain types of health care for women,but they didn't tell any of their female em-
ployees that they couldn't go out and get an abortion. It was their choice to make up their health insurance as they
chose--even on biblical grounds. It is the principle of allowing privately-held companies to do as they chose,whether
someone else likes that choice or not,as long as their employees are adequately provided for. As Steve said,the em-
ployees do not get to tell the employer what they can and can't do.



John

Hi John,

I'm well aware of your beliefs, no surprise you would disagree with my view !! Still "tossing around" varying opinions ( whether we agree or not) is generally a worthwhile effort in understanding counter viewpoints and their reasoning. The case won on the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

From Cornell:
At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,” 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.

As you will read it wasn't a choice the employer could make but a legal obligation, an obligation they chose not to meet. Nor is it a case of the employee telling the business, it's the Government. Businesses operate within the law, this notion of the "owner can do what he wants because it's his" only applies within the legal framework and requirements that have to be met. Female employees of Hobby Lobby now have less coverage than those working for other companies, they have been discriminated against by the religious beliefs of someone else. It has nothing to do with what a person may chose to pay for themselves in regard to health/medical issue but the use of religious ideology create a discriminatory position. In this case the Court found it acceptable. To deny a woman the cover for an IUD if no other option was suitable on religious grounds is , to me, a terrible injustice. Now you will see various other case based on this ruling, some will succeed, some will fail and the cover provided decline and discrimination based on religious beliefs will possibly increase.

This appears to be a reiteration of the previous points. A few comments:

- Any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately hinges on the Constitutionality of an issue. If previous laws or decisions are cited as support for the current decision, then it is still because those issues were found to be Constitutional (or not).

- It was not a legal obligation of the employer. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the law, as written or interpreted, was in fact not legal and the employer was not legally bound or obligated to provide those types of coverage.

- Freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) is a specific right guaranteed by the Constitution. Birth Control, Abortions and Health Care are not enumerated rights. (note that I am not a particularly religious person).

HughC
March 24th, 2015, 04:06 AM
Is Hobby Lobby or it's owners enforcing their beliefs on their employees? The employee may still purchase contraceptive devices or obtain an abortion. Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for it, because it runs counter to their own beliefs. I think it's an important distinction, regardless of which side one sympathizes with.

The answer is yes because they won under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The abortion part is a straw man in a lot of ways, at present pregnancy ( by definition) begins when a fertilized egg implant in the uterus lining and the 4 methods under question are designed to prevent ovulation or fertilization not remove an implanted egg. Clearly other methods are still available through the health plan but if they cause a problem or medical advice suggests an I.U.D. then you're discriminated (financially disadvantaged) against by being denied an option available to others in the private sector covered by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 .

I think it's an issue that Hobby Lobby and the medical profession differ in what defines a pregnancy. How can Plan B which inhibits ovulation be any different to a regular contraceptive pill ? The religious belief and fact are different, being given legal protection for false beliefs at the expense of fact is , as Jar would say, an obscenity.

We all either do or have previously discriminated against others because of race ,religion or "whatever" at some point, sometimes without even realizing. I certainly accept discrimination will always exist but I think the less the better. I think the Hobby Lobby outcome goes against that and it also opens the way for more actions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that could discriminate. If the majority of people in the US wish to have a greater religious base in their legal system ( and hence political system) then so be it, if the majority don't they need to ensure it doesn't occur by stealth. The US (and Australia but as much ) has a dark past of discrimination, the attempts to achieve anything like a true democracy have progressed so I wonder why anyone would embrace turning back the clock as acceptable.

I don't believe your conclusion (paraphrased as "Yes, Hobby Lobby did enforce its owners' beliefs on their employees") is supported by your argument. The comments on the definition of pregnancy and discrimination are distractors to the central question. The fact still stands that the employee is free to believe how they wish, and purchase contraception or abortions as they wish.





dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

No it wasn't, what you argued was that it's okay to discriminate on religious belief.

No, what I argued was that it was an employers right to decide what benefit/group of benefits they want to provide to their employees. It is their privately held company. I would feel the same if they chose to provide abortifacients. I would disagree with their decision, but it would be legal, and as a private company, it should be their right to make that decision.

They wanted to not provide what the Department of Health and Human Services stated they should, their legal obligation at that time. You argued it was perfectly okay to not provide the legal minimum standard because of religious belief, a religious belief that was then used to discriminate against some people. It is not an "employers right to decide" but a legal obligation to provide a certain standard. A wealthy country like the US should be able to provide adequate, affordable healthcare to it's citizens and the same minimum standard should apply to all ( that it doesn't is a major failure ), that you have certain companies trying ( and succeeding) in altering that standard downwards and in a discriminatory way should be viewed as a retrograde step even more so when not fact based.

This is where a national health scheme run by Government is an alternative worth consideration as it removes this type of issue from the workplace and away from the influence of extreme ideology.

The Supreme Court agreed that Hobby Lobby was correct, and that they had no legal obligation to provide certain benefits to their employees. What the law said at the time is irrelevant, since citizens (and corporations) have the right to challenge laws they find to be wrong.

Claims of discrimination are a red herring. No employee of Hobby Lobby has those items funded by the employer. That is an equal standard for all employees.

What a wealthy country like the U.S. "should" be able to provide is also irrelevant.


The Government did, whether they should or not is a different matter as is what that should cover. I'm sorry you take offense to the words "extreme ideology" , it simply means outside the expected norm and in this case as their claim has no medical basis it probably fits. Every company has to act within the law, you don't actually have a total freedom of choice so that's a strawman, try deciding not to pay tax for some reason. If your going to have a scheme it needs minimum standards, that should be obvious. Obamacare goes a long way to providing a decent affordable health care system to all regardless.

How do you expect people on low wages or socially disadvantaged to be afforded adequate healthcare ? The US is a rich country yet around 50 million people can't afford health cover , how many die every year from preventable causes? And you want to lower and remove health cover to even more people !! You need to look at "the big picture" , do you really believe the Founders would think letting people die because they where poor as acceptable? Adequate health care should be viewed as a public issue of great importance and that's what the US Government is trying to achieve, they could just tax businesses instead of requiring them to provide coverage but in the end it's the same result. Still while it does there is a minimum standard that has to be met and eroding that should be avoided especially when it's discriminatory.

A lot of people don't have a job choice, they take what they get because there's no option.

You seem to emphasize what the Government did, and what the law said, before the USSC judgement; but ignore the fact that the USSC has determined what is in fact legal in the overarching context of the United States Constitution.

The rest is an appeal to emotion, i.e.: "It's for the children!!!" If you are going to assert what the Founders would have thought, perhaps you could cite some of them remarking on the notion of a Federal level welfare system. I suspect you won't find it.






dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.


Agreed. A private company can choose how it sets up its employe insurance and the employees(or future employees)
can make their decision if they feel that they want to have an abortion. They just can't tell their employer that they
have to provide abortion coverage. And that is the right of the employer to not provide that coverage.



John

John.

The issue was about contraception not abortion, the claim the methods in question where a form of abortion are not supported by medical opinion. The other point is this is about opting out of the requirements of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) which sets the standard for provided coverage which is a legal requirement. The standard is simply a reflection of the general communities health needs.

Regards
Hugh




Hugh,I respect your right to think and feel as you do,but the gist of the entire court case was about the right of
a private company to provide or not provide health care as it chooses,not contraception/abortion. The owners of
Hobby Lobby chose to not have certain types of health care for women,but they didn't tell any of their female em-
ployees that they couldn't go out and get an abortion. It was their choice to make up their health insurance as they
chose--even on biblical grounds. It is the principle of allowing privately-held companies to do as they chose,whether
someone else likes that choice or not,as long as their employees are adequately provided for. As Steve said,the em-
ployees do not get to tell the employer what they can and can't do.



John

Hi John,

I'm well aware of your beliefs, no surprise you would disagree with my view !! Still "tossing around" varying opinions ( whether we agree or not) is generally a worthwhile effort in understanding counter viewpoints and their reasoning. The case won on the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

From Cornell:
At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,” 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.

As you will read it wasn't a choice the employer could make but a legal obligation, an obligation they chose not to meet. Nor is it a case of the employee telling the business, it's the Government. Businesses operate within the law, this notion of the "owner can do what he wants because it's his" only applies within the legal framework and requirements that have to be met. Female employees of Hobby Lobby now have less coverage than those working for other companies, they have been discriminated against by the religious beliefs of someone else. It has nothing to do with what a person may chose to pay for themselves in regard to health/medical issue but the use of religious ideology create a discriminatory position. In this case the Court found it acceptable. To deny a woman the cover for an IUD if no other option was suitable on religious grounds is , to me, a terrible injustice. Now you will see various other case based on this ruling, some will succeed, some will fail and the cover provided decline and discrimination based on religious beliefs will possibly increase.

This appears to be a reiteration of the previous points. A few comments:

- Any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately hinges on the Constitutionality of an issue. If previous laws or decisions are cited as support for the current decision, then it is still because those issues were found to be Constitutional (or not).

- It was not a legal obligation of the employer. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the law, as written or interpreted, was in fact not legal and the employer was not legally bound or obligated to provide those types of coverage.

- Freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) is a specific right guaranteed by the Constitution. Birth Control, Abortions and Health Care are not enumerated rights. (note that I am not a particularly religious person).

Reading and understanding what I wrote would be a start........

HughC
March 24th, 2015, 04:40 AM
As I don't live in the US I don't really care how you decide to run your country. I do on the other had hold certain values as universal and some of those are equal rights regardless of race or religion. I'm not religious and more people have been killed, tortured, maimed and displaced in the name of "religion" over the history of mankind than any other cause such that it makes the notion of "religious values" open to less than favourable comments. The US ( and numerous other countries including Australia) are what they are today on the displacement of the original inhabitants, the "founding fathers" had little respect for those not of their own race. Extreme religious ideology is not just confined to a group in Syria called IS but is in the wings of a number of religions including the christian based ones.

The more I read here the more I understand Jar's thoughts on many issues, the clearer it becomes that his thoughts are very close to the mark. It appears to me the US is on a rather unfavorable path to the future, a future that will be very unkind to many through no fault of their own. Given the ability of the US to create new religions ( or churches) with little real purpose except to be run by a person who thinks he's right allowing "religious beliefs" to take precedence seems stupid when it has no factual base. Having a population ( or part thereof) indoctrinated with "faeries at the bottom of the garden" style beliefs then saying these beliefs have greater importance than the truth and facts is absurd.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/10423775_10204067564075542_1933856864823414694_n.j pg?oh=617a67dc08a1eecb8b086e0b10a7b775&oe=55B6B2C5&__gda__=1433987072_8f7a4ce6a7f6f90f4669997166e6d44 f

Yep, some believe it happened....

dneal
March 24th, 2015, 06:09 AM
Reading and understanding what I wrote would be a start........

Perhaps you could do a better job conveying your thoughts. I put quite a bit of effort into trying to sort out the pseudo arguments.

stevekolt
March 24th, 2015, 09:33 AM
Actually HughC, your assertion that "more people have been killed, tortured, maimed and displaced in the name of "religion" over the history of mankind than any other cause" is false in it's own right. The numbers killed under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, aside from all the other "lesser" despots are exponentially larger than the numbers you claim to be citing. It would also seem that to you, any grounding of one's moral compass in a religious belief system constitutes "extreme religious ideology". Why is it that the folks that seem to pride themselves on their "tolerance", are so intolerant of those that do not share their views? Not really a question, more of an observation.

mmahany
March 24th, 2015, 11:06 AM
Reading and understanding what I wrote would be a start........
You supported your opinion using half a paragraph from a 52 page document. Furthermore, the first half of the paragraph DOES NOT apply to companies like Hobby Lobby. The full paragraph clearly states the difference between “Nonexempt” and “Exempt” employers. It was proven in a court of law that Hobby Lobby qualifies as an exempt employer.

The latter half of that paragraph (which was conveniently absent from your post) reads:
“Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries.”

It seems unfair to act condescending towards others when you’ve clearly taken information out of context to support your argument. In context, the full document actually argues AGAINST your point.

Of note, the full document can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

HughC
March 24th, 2015, 03:42 PM
Reading and understanding what I wrote would be a start........
You supported your opinion using half a paragraph from a 52 page document. Furthermore, the first half of the paragraph DOES NOT apply to companies like Hobby Lobby. The full paragraph clearly states the difference between “Nonexempt” and “Exempt” employers. It was proven in a court of law that Hobby Lobby qualifies as an exempt employer.

The latter half of that paragraph (which was conveniently absent from your post) reads:
“Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries.”

It seems unfair to act condescending towards others when you’ve clearly taken information out of context to support your argument. In context, the full document actually argues AGAINST your point.

Of note, the full document can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

Wrong, the case was about a profit making company claiming it had a religious identity because it's shareholders do. Think about the fact a company has become a religious identity in it's own right.

It is interesting to note the female judges where in dissent, a telling point I think.

On that note Justice Ginsbergs comments deserve mention ( as reported NY Times):

Ginsburg’s Dissent
Justice Ginsburg, in this forceful dissent against a decision of “startling breadth,” argues that the Hobby Lobby decision will open the floodgates for corporations to “opt out of any law” except for tax laws, which have a higher level of constitutional protection, so long as they can cite sincerely held religious beliefs.
From Page 60 of the Document

In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. See ante, at 16–49. Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a “less restrictive alternative.” And such an alternative, the Court suggests, there always will be whenever, in lieu of tolling an enterprise claiming a religion-based exemption, the government, i.e., the general public, can pick up the tab.
The decision, Justice Ginsburg argues, disregards the beliefs and needs of employees and their dependents. Supporting the beliefs of one group of people behind a corporation — its owners — can harm other people, she writes, citing one of the fundamental principles of conflicting rights.
From Page 67 of the Document

The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure. See Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal. 4th 527, 565, 85 P. 3d 67, 93 (2004) (“We are unaware of any decision in which . . . [the U. S. Supreme Court] has exempted a religious objector from the operation of a neutral, generally applicable law despite the recognition that the requested exemption would detrimentally affect the rights of third parties.”). In sum, with respect to free exercise claims no less than free speech claims, “‘[y]our right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.’” Chafee, Freedom of Speech in War Time, 32 Harv. L. Rev. 932, 957 (1919).
Justice Ginsburg presses the majority on its contention that for-profit corporations are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Religious organizations and nonprofits can claim to be a unified community, but workers in a for-profit company may well have views and needs that are distinct from those of their employers — a “key difference,” she writes.
From Page 75 of the Document

Indeed, until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in “the commercial, profit-making world.” Amos, 483 U. S., at 337.16

The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations.
Justice Ginsburg raises the specter of religiously based objections to such principles as racial integration, blood transfusions, certain medications and others that could create a tangle in the lower courts. She scoffs that the majority “sees nothing to worry about.” The court, she warns, has “ventured into a minefield.”
From Page 91 of the Document

Why should decisions of this order be made by Congress or the regulatory authority, and not this Court? Hobby Lobby and Conestoga surely do not stand alone as com- mercial enterprises seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws on the basis of their religious beliefs. See, e.g., Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941, 945 (SC 1966) (owner of restaurant chain refused to serve black patrons based on his religious beliefs opposing racial integration), aff ’d in relevant part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 377 F.2d 433 (CA4 1967), aff’d and modified on other grounds, 390 U. S. 400 (1968); In re Minnesota ex rel. McClure, 370 N. W. 2d 844, 847 (Minn. 1985) (born-again Christians who owned closely held, for- profit health clubs believed that the Bible proscribed hiring or retaining an “individua[l] living with but not married to a person of the opposite sex,” “a young, single woman working without her father’s consent or a married woman working without her husband’s consent,” and any person “antagonistic to the Bible,” including “fornicators and homosexuals.”
Continuing the examples of the kinds of religious objections that could wreak havoc with the legal system, Justice Ginsburg cites blood transfusions, vaccinations, and pills with a gelatin coating, which could offend the religious sensibilities of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Muslims, Jews and Hindus.
From Page 92 of the Document

Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?

Produced by Hannah Fairfield and Josh Williams


Justice Ginsberg has fully understood the possible ramifications of this ruling. A lot here don't. That she was in the minority beggars belief.

HughC
March 24th, 2015, 04:07 PM
Actually HughC, your assertion that "more people have been killed, tortured, maimed and displaced in the name of "religion" over the history of mankind than any other cause" is false in it's own right. The numbers killed under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, aside from all the other "lesser" despots are exponentially larger than the numbers you claim to be citing. It would also seem that to you, any grounding of one's moral compass in a religious belief system constitutes "extreme religious ideology". Why is it that the folks that seem to pride themselves on their "tolerance", are so intolerant of those that do not share their views? Not really a question, more of an observation.

True, I should have added "persecution"....so more people have been killed, tortured, maimed, persecuted and displaced in the name of "religion" over the history of mankind than any other cause.

Your choice of examples is absolutely appalling.

Hitler.....genocide against Jews

Your observation is wrong, I tolerate most peoples religious views. People are free to believe what they want, that doesn't extend to enforcing their views on others. Nor does it extend to making claims that are false as being factually correct. IS and the Taliban are examples of extreme ideology of the least pleasant type. Believing god created the world in 7 days or Noah really did build an ark are also extreme views with no factual base, there is no harm in believing it though. You need to understand you are not born religious, you are indoctrinated into religion. Religion brings many benefits to a lot of people. Religion is also used as a shield to discriminate etc by some. It's more a matter of being open minded.

HughC
March 24th, 2015, 04:41 PM
Reading and understanding what I wrote would be a start........

Perhaps you could do a better job conveying your thoughts. I put quite a bit of effort into trying to sort out the pseudo arguments.

Not really, in it's own right what Hobby Lobby provides to employees in term of contraception is fairly irrelevant, that it argues it's case not on fact and wins is relevant . That a profit making company can now use religious beliefs of it's shareholders to determine it's actions should be of concern. The shareholders can be religious, now companies possibly have the same rights to religious freedom. The decision would appear to be a rather poor one, I agree with Justice Ginsberg.

One of the features of this topic has been the future and future issues. Health care is an issue now and will be in the future, setting the ground work for one that works into the future would be a good idea. On that decisions that could adversely reduce health care are poor, allowing more exemptions does just that. While such discussion is just "idle chatter" it does help to give some thought to how the future will unfold in some areas.

Of course Hobby Lobby was discriminating, what's the difference between the pill and Plan B ? Why should a woman who can only use an IUD be excluded ?

mmahany
March 25th, 2015, 10:19 AM
[QUOTE=dneal;122383]
That a profit making company can now use religious beliefs of it's shareholders to determine it's actions should be of concern. The shareholders can be religious, now companies possibly have the same rights to religious freedom. The decision would appear to be a rather poor one, I agree with Justice Ginsberg.
If that’s your argument then I have to ask: Why target Hobby Lobby?

In addition, why do you believe in discriminating against men/women who choose to incorporate there business differently? The owners of certain profit making companies were (and still are) protected even before this court case.

There was never a dispute that the religious beliefs of a sole or general proprietor are protected under the RFRA. In addition, there was never a dispute that the religious beliefs of a closely held nonprofit corporation are protected under the RFRA.

Why should a man/woman have to forfeit that protection simply because they’ve built a successful corporation?

Saving the most important question for last, I ask you: At what point does a man/woman business owner forfeit the protection of their religious freedoms?
EDIT- To be more specific, how successful does their business need to become before their rights deserve to be taken away?

pengeezer
March 25th, 2015, 11:25 AM
[QUOTE=dneal;122383]
That a profit making company can now use religious beliefs of it's shareholders to determine it's actions should be of concern. The shareholders can be religious, now companies possibly have the same rights to religious freedom. The decision would appear to be a rather poor one, I agree with Justice Ginsberg.
If that’s your argument then I have to ask: Why target Hobby Lobby?

In addition, why do you believe in discriminating against men/women who choose to incorporate there business differently? The owners of certain profit making companies were (and still are) protected even before this court case.

There was never a dispute that the religious beliefs of a sole or general proprietor are protected under the RFRA. In addition, there was never a dispute that the religious beliefs of a closely held nonprofit corporation are protected under the RFRA.

Why should a man/woman have to forfeit that protection simply because they’ve built a successful corporation?

Saving the most important question for last, I ask you: At what point does a man/woman business owner forfeit the protection of their religious freedoms?
EDIT- To be more specific, how successful does their business need to become before their rights deserve to be taken away?


Not to debate semantics;there is a difference between a privately-owned company that bases its
choices for its employees on biblical grounds(their freedom to do so) and a profit-making company with
religious intent. The first has the intent of the betterment of the owners and the employees;the second,
less specific and more general in its description gives the impression of malfescence with a religious--not
biblical intent.



John

HughC
March 25th, 2015, 03:30 PM
[QUOTE=dneal;122383]
That a profit making company can now use religious beliefs of it's shareholders to determine it's actions should be of concern. The shareholders can be religious, now companies possibly have the same rights to religious freedom. The decision would appear to be a rather poor one, I agree with Justice Ginsberg.
If that’s your argument then I have to ask: Why target Hobby Lobby?

In addition, why do you believe in discriminating against men/women who choose to incorporate there business differently? The owners of certain profit making companies were (and still are) protected even before this court case.

There was never a dispute that the religious beliefs of a sole or general proprietor are protected under the RFRA. In addition, there was never a dispute that the religious beliefs of a closely held nonprofit corporation are protected under the RFRA.

Why should a man/woman have to forfeit that protection simply because they’ve built a successful corporation?

Saving the most important question for last, I ask you: At what point does a man/woman business owner forfeit the protection of their religious freedoms?
EDIT- To be more specific, how successful does their business need to become before their rights deserve to be taken away?

I don't think I target Hobby Lobby but look at the broader possible implications, which is what that quote attempts to do.

People choose to incorporate because it provides certain benefits, especially protection in the event of business failure. The rights of the individual shareholders are not affected, I see no need to extend all the rights an individual has to a company, note the laws that apply to companies don't specifically apply to individual shareholders which it would appear that your argument would support. How often do you see companies fail leaving people out of pocket while the shareholders ( owners) walk away with little financial loss? Incorporating is a business choice not a religious choice.

How is any individuals rights/protection forfeited by incorporation ?

A company is not a person, it's not living, it's a business structure, it can bought and sold, it's shareholders can change. Do you believe it should be treated as an equal to a person? Do you believe a company is an extension of the shareholders or a separate entity?

While I haven't read the entire judgement I wonder if Hobby Lobby was sold would the exemptions won still apply ? I suspect they would as the exemption applies to the company not the shareholders.

dneal
March 26th, 2015, 04:16 AM
It would be nice if you guys could check your quote formatting before you post... :/

Anyway,


It is interesting to note the female judges where in dissent, a telling point I think.

Of course they're also the liberals. Quite telling? or correlation without causation?


A company is not a person, it's not living, it's a business structure, it can bought and sold

Since it can be bought and sold, it wouldn't be a stretch to recognize that a company is property that belongs to one or more individuals. Property has no rights or obligations. Property is just a thing owned.

Hobby Lobby (or any other company) as mere property, does not provide employment. The owner(s) of the/a company do. If I own a ranch, and hire work hands, is the ranch employing them or am I? Does it matter what business scheme I organize the ranch under?

Morgaine
March 26th, 2015, 11:05 AM
As I don't live in the US I don't really care how you decide to run your country. I do on the other had hold certain values as universal and some of those are equal rights regardless of race or religion. I'm not religious and more people have been killed, tortured, maimed and displaced in the name of "religion" over the history of mankind than any other cause such that it makes the notion of "religious values" open to less than favourable comments. The US ( and numerous other countries including Australia) are what they are today on the displacement of the original inhabitants, the "founding fathers" had little respect for those not of their own race. Extreme religious ideology is not just confined to a group in Syria called IS but is in the wings of a number of religions including the christian based ones.

The more I read here the more I understand Jar's thoughts on many issues, the clearer it becomes that his thoughts are very close to the mark. It appears to me the US is on a rather unfavorable path to the future, a future that will be very unkind to many through no fault of their own. Given the ability of the US to create new religions ( or churches) with little real purpose except to be run by a person who thinks he's right allowing "religious beliefs" to take precedence seems stupid when it has no factual base. Having a population ( or part thereof) indoctrinated with "faeries at the bottom of the garden" style beliefs then saying these beliefs have greater importance than the truth and facts is absurd.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/10423775_10204067564075542_1933856864823414694_n.j pg?oh=617a67dc08a1eecb8b086e0b10a7b775&oe=55B6B2C5&__gda__=1433987072_8f7a4ce6a7f6f90f4669997166e6d44 f

Yep, some believe it happened....

Well said.

I lived in Belfast at a quiet time. I left in 2000. The last week, we had to drive on the pavement to avoid the burning barricades, walk home because the buses were cancelled and no taxi would take you to another area of the city, watched children throwing stuff at the police. Then in 2001, I was in disbelief as Catholic children as young as 4 (or maybe 3), had stones and abuse thrown at them as they walked to school through a protestant area. Doesn't sound very Christian.
I write this as a member of neither the Protestant or Catholic community (I applied for work in Belfast and that was the equal opportunities form, no mention of colour or race (ethnic background) but which Christian sect you belong to).

mmahany
March 26th, 2015, 02:39 PM
How often do you see companies fail leaving people out of pocket while the shareholders ( owners) walk away with little financial loss?

Rarely, if at all. In fact, I can't think of a single example where this has happened. Maybe you could share a few examples to help me understand.

The concept behind a "Shareholder" is that they own a portion (or shares) of a company. If a company failed and ceased to exist (without being bought out) it would essentially make those shares valueless.


Hopefully, you're not making the mistake of comparing Hobby Lobby to a publicly traded company like Walmart. Walmart is a publicly traded company. Anyone (and any business) can purchase shares of Walmart essentially making them partial owners. There was never a dispute that the shareholders of publicly traded companies are protected under the RFRA (they aren't). In fact, there was never a dispute that PRIVATELY held companies are protected under the RFRA. The dispute is about "Closely-Held corporations" which is a fancy term for "family owned usinesses."

Ultimately, when discussing Hobby Lobby, we are talking about a family owned company. The only "Shareholders" are family members within the Green family. In fact, the nature of their ownership is closer to a "mom and pop" antique store on the side of the road than to a company like Walmart.

Now, if the Green family were to sell a portion (or all) of their business they could absolutely lose their protection under the RFRA. However, until they do, Hobby Lobby is nothing more than a very successful family-owned business.

pengeezer
March 26th, 2015, 08:13 PM
How often do you see companies fail leaving people out of pocket while the shareholders ( owners) walk away with little financial loss?

Rarely, if at all. In fact, I can't think of a single example where this has happened. Maybe you could share a few examples to help me understand.

The concept behind a "Shareholder" is that they own a portion (or shares) of a company. If a company failed and ceased to exist (without being bought out) it would essentially make those shares valueless.


Hopefully, you're not making the mistake of comparing Hobby Lobby to a publicly traded company like Walmart. Walmart is a publicly traded company. Anyone (and any business) can purchase shares of Walmart essentially making them partial owners. There was never a dispute that the shareholders of publicly traded companies are protected under the RFRA (they aren't). In fact, there was never a dispute that PRIVATELY held companies are protected under the RFRA. The dispute is about "Closely-Held corporations" which is a fancy term for "family owned usinesses."

Ultimately, when discussing Hobby Lobby, we are talking about a family owned company. The only "Shareholders" are family members within the Green family. In fact, the nature of their ownership is closer to a "mom and pop" antique store on the side of the road than to a company like Walmart.

Now, if the Green family were to sell a portion (or all) of their business they could absolutely lose their protection under the RFRA. However, until they do, Hobby Lobby is nothing more than a very successful family-owned business.



It should also be noted that the owners of Hobby Lobby treat their employees well. The employees get a starting pay
of $13/hr--above minimum wage--and great benefits. No employee of the company brought the lawsuit against them--it
was the head of Health & Human Services, a government entity. Since there wasn't any link to the government,the case
really had no merit. The bottom line was the freedom to provide healthcare for their employees without disregard to the
scriptual convictions the owners held to.



John

HughC
March 26th, 2015, 08:26 PM
How often do you see companies fail leaving people out of pocket while the shareholders ( owners) walk away with little financial loss?

Rarely, if at all. In fact, I can't think of a single example where this has happened. Maybe you could share a few examples to help me understand.

The concept behind a "Shareholder" is that they own a portion (or shares) of a company. If a company failed and ceased to exist (without being bought out) it would essentially make those shares valueless.


Hopefully, you're not making the mistake of comparing Hobby Lobby to a publicly traded company like Walmart. Walmart is a publicly traded company. Anyone (and any business) can purchase shares of Walmart essentially making them partial owners. There was never a dispute that the shareholders of publicly traded companies are protected under the RFRA (they aren't). In fact, there was never a dispute that PRIVATELY held companies are protected under the RFRA. The dispute is about "Closely-Held corporations" which is a fancy term for "family owned usinesses."

Ultimately, when discussing Hobby Lobby, we are talking about a family owned company. The only "Shareholders" are family members within the Green family. In fact, the nature of their ownership is closer to a "mom and pop" antique store on the side of the road than to a company like Walmart.

Now, if the Green family were to sell a portion (or all) of their business they could absolutely lose their protection under the RFRA. However, until they do, Hobby Lobby is nothing more than a very successful family-owned business.

Examples are abundant, I see little need in bothering to find the obvious. I will mention though a couple I've known for 30 odds years had their tightly held company (2 shareholders, a construction company), go bust owing around the 30 m mark. They still have the yacht ( a decent sized ocean going one), the Porsche, the 4m ranch, large house, the 1/5 m horse trailer ( well...your horse has to be comfortable....). On the other hand a local sub contractor was left $250,000 out of pocket for the bricks he'd bought for the.....now this is ironic...the new local Court House and being a non incorporated business his assets, like his home, are not protected. This was the case for a large number of subies. That's the protection a company structure provides.

The shareholders are not responsible for the debts if a company fails, while the loss of value occurs it would occur what ever the structure. The difference is in single/ partnership type those people are directly responsible for any losses ie unrelated investments/property can be called upon to cover the debt or part thereof where as under a company structure they are not. A significant difference.

The only difference between a family company or a listed company is the way shares are traded, whether a company has 1, 10 or 10,000 shareholders makes no difference to the way company law and regulations apply. Shareholders, if individuals, are protected under the RFRA because they're ordinary people regardless of the size of the company or public or private. The Greens are protected under the RFRA as you are, the question was is a company they own shares in also protected and it decided it does.

Now, I asked you some questions earlier, are you going to answer them?

pengeezer
March 26th, 2015, 08:29 PM
As I don't live in the US I don't really care how you decide to run your country. I do on the other had hold certain values as universal and some of those are equal rights regardless of race or religion. I'm not religious and more people have been killed, tortured, maimed and displaced in the name of "religion" over the history of mankind than any other cause such that it makes the notion of "religious values" open to less than favourable comments. The US ( and numerous other countries including Australia) are what they are today on the displacement of the original inhabitants, the "founding fathers" had little respect for those not of their own race. Extreme religious ideology is not just confined to a group in Syria called IS but is in the wings of a number of religions including the christian based ones.

The more I read here the more I understand Jar's thoughts on many issues, the clearer it becomes that his thoughts are very close to the mark. It appears to me the US is on a rather unfavorable path to the future, a future that will be very unkind to many through no fault of their own. Given the ability of the US to create new religions ( or churches) with little real purpose except to be run by a person who thinks he's right allowing "religious beliefs" to take precedence seems stupid when it has no factual base. Having a population ( or part thereof) indoctrinated with "faeries at the bottom of the garden" style beliefs then saying these beliefs have greater importance than the truth and facts is absurd.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/10423775_10204067564075542_1933856864823414694_n.j pg?oh=617a67dc08a1eecb8b086e0b10a7b775&oe=55B6B2C5&__gda__=1433987072_8f7a4ce6a7f6f90f4669997166e6d44 f

Yep, some believe it happened....

Well said.

I lived in Belfast at a quiet time. I left in 2000. The last week, we had to drive on the pavement to avoid the burning barricades, walk home because the buses were cancelled and no taxi would take you to another area of the city, watched children throwing stuff at the police. Then in 2001, I was in disbelief as Catholic children as young as 4 (or maybe 3), had stones and abuse thrown at them as they walked to school through a protestant area. Doesn't sound very Christian.
I write this as a member of neither the Protestant or Catholic community (I applied for work in Belfast and that was the equal opportunities form, no mention of colour or race (ethnic background) but which Christian sect you belong to).



While I don't condone the actions of those who call themselves Christian and do things as you have described,there
are many who claim to be Christian who may "talk the talk"(as it has been said) but "walking the walk" is foreign to them
because they only claim the name and not the life.

Not all of us are like that.


John

HughC
March 26th, 2015, 08:45 PM
It is interesting to note the female judges where in dissent, a telling point I think.



Thank you for drawing this to my attention, it's a very poor statement that I now retract. To imply the Judges opinions may have been affected by their sex is clearly wrong and sexist. I apologize for that error.





A company is not a person, it's not living, it's a business structure, it can bought and sold

Since it can be bought and sold, it wouldn't be a stretch to recognize that a company is property that belongs to one or more individuals. Property has no rights or obligations. Property is just a thing owned.

Hobby Lobby (or any other company) as mere property, does not provide employment. The owner(s) of the/a company do. If I own a ranch, and hire work hands, is the ranch employing them or am I? Does it matter what business scheme I organize the ranch under?

It can be bought or sold by way of it's shareholders selling their shares, the company remains. The question you need to ask in your example is who owns the ranch? If it's a company then the company pays the employees, if it's you your name is on the cheque. You might own the shares but your income from the ranch is by way of dividend from the company. In practical terms it makes little difference in the day to day running of this ranch as you indicate, the difference is the business structure. You need to think of a company as the "middle man".

HughC
March 26th, 2015, 08:49 PM
While I don't condone the actions of those who call themselves Christian and do things as you have described,there
are many who claim to be Christian who may "talk the talk"(as it has been said) but "walking the walk" is foreign to them
because they only claim the name and not the life.

Not all of us are like that.


John

No doubt John you "talk the talk and walk the walk" and , from what I've seen, hold your values and beliefs dearly.

Regards
Hugh

pengeezer
March 26th, 2015, 08:55 PM
While I don't condone the actions of those who call themselves Christian and do things as you have described,there
are many who claim to be Christian who may "talk the talk"(as it has been said) but "walking the walk" is foreign to them
because they only claim the name and not the life.

Not all of us are like that.


John

No doubt John you "talk the talk and walk the walk" and , from what I've seen, hold your values and beliefs dearly.

Regards
Hugh



Thank you,Hugh. I accept your compliment humbly.



John

dneal
March 27th, 2015, 12:07 AM
Thank you for drawing this to my attention, it's a very poor statement that I now retract. To imply the Judges opinions may have been affected by their sex is clearly wrong and sexist. I apologize for that error.





A company is not a person, it's not living, it's a business structure, it can bought and sold

Since it can be bought and sold, it wouldn't be a stretch to recognize that a company is property that belongs to one or more individuals. Property has no rights or obligations. Property is just a thing owned.

Hobby Lobby (or any other company) as mere property, does not provide employment. The owner(s) of the/a company do. If I own a ranch, and hire work hands, is the ranch employing them or am I? Does it matter what business scheme I organize the ranch under?

It can be bought or sold by way of it's shareholders selling their shares, the company remains. The question you need to ask in your example is who owns the ranch? If it's a company then the company pays the employees, if it's you your name is on the cheque. You might own the shares but your income from the ranch is by way of dividend from the company. In practical terms it makes little difference in the day to day running of this ranch as you indicate, the difference is the business structure. You need to think of a company as the "middle man".

I think that conceiving of a company as a "middle man" is the flaw in your perspective. In the example above, "Company" and "Ranch" are analogous. They are both property. Although assets can be compiled within a company, a company cannot "own" anything. Only "owners" (to include shareholders) can.

HughC
March 27th, 2015, 04:08 AM
Thank you for drawing this to my attention, it's a very poor statement that I now retract. To imply the Judges opinions may have been affected by their sex is clearly wrong and sexist. I apologize for that error.





A company is not a person, it's not living, it's a business structure, it can bought and sold

Since it can be bought and sold, it wouldn't be a stretch to recognize that a company is property that belongs to one or more individuals. Property has no rights or obligations. Property is just a thing owned.

Hobby Lobby (or any other company) as mere property, does not provide employment. The owner(s) of the/a company do. If I own a ranch, and hire work hands, is the ranch employing them or am I? Does it matter what business scheme I organize the ranch under?

It can be bought or sold by way of it's shareholders selling their shares, the company remains. The question you need to ask in your example is who owns the ranch? If it's a company then the company pays the employees, if it's you your name is on the cheque. You might own the shares but your income from the ranch is by way of dividend from the company. In practical terms it makes little difference in the day to day running of this ranch as you indicate, the difference is the business structure. You need to think of a company as the "middle man".

I think that conceiving of a company as a "middle man" is the flaw in your perspective. In the example above, "Company" and "Ranch" are analogous. They are both property. Although assets can be compiled within a company, a company cannot "own" anything. Only "owners" (to include shareholders) can.

Considering I own rural property ( as you would say a "ranch") in several different structures being partnership and company ( tightly held btw) I think I have rather more first hand knowledge of the example than you do. Both have benefits and disadvantages and there are differences.

You miss the obvious, the company can sell the ranch and buy another venture/business and your relationship with the company as a shareholder remains unchanged....you still have shares in EXACTLY the same company it just doesn't own a ranch anymore just something different. Even if the company you own the shares in employs you you still remain an employee...just doing a different job. That you decided what the company should do doesn't change your relationship with the company as such ( ie you don't have to reorganize your personal finances...another entity does the buying and selling).

Given your thinking you need to ask "why would anyone incorporate?" as you can see no difference. There are benefits in the longer term for even family operations in such areas as asset protection outside the company ( assets held by individuals) and succession planning amongst others, there are also disadvantages that can occur.

dneal
March 27th, 2015, 05:29 AM
Thank you for drawing this to my attention, it's a very poor statement that I now retract. To imply the Judges opinions may have been affected by their sex is clearly wrong and sexist. I apologize for that error.





A company is not a person, it's not living, it's a business structure, it can bought and sold

Since it can be bought and sold, it wouldn't be a stretch to recognize that a company is property that belongs to one or more individuals. Property has no rights or obligations. Property is just a thing owned.

Hobby Lobby (or any other company) as mere property, does not provide employment. The owner(s) of the/a company do. If I own a ranch, and hire work hands, is the ranch employing them or am I? Does it matter what business scheme I organize the ranch under?

It can be bought or sold by way of it's shareholders selling their shares, the company remains. The question you need to ask in your example is who owns the ranch? If it's a company then the company pays the employees, if it's you your name is on the cheque. You might own the shares but your income from the ranch is by way of dividend from the company. In practical terms it makes little difference in the day to day running of this ranch as you indicate, the difference is the business structure. You need to think of a company as the "middle man".

I think that conceiving of a company as a "middle man" is the flaw in your perspective. In the example above, "Company" and "Ranch" are analogous. They are both property. Although assets can be compiled within a company, a company cannot "own" anything. Only "owners" (to include shareholders) can.

Considering I own rural property ( as you would say a "ranch") in several different structures being partnership and company ( tightly held btw) I think I have rather more first hand knowledge of the example than you do. Both have benefits and disadvantages and there are differences.

You miss the obvious, the company can sell the ranch and buy another venture/business and your relationship with the company as a shareholder remains unchanged....you still have shares in EXACTLY the same company it just doesn't own a ranch anymore just something different. Even if the company you own the shares in employs you you still remain an employee...just doing a different job. That you decided what the company should do doesn't change your relationship with the company as such ( ie you don't have to reorganize your personal finances...another entity does the buying and selling).

Given your thinking you need to ask "why would anyone incorporate?" as you can see no difference. There are benefits in the longer term for even family operations in such areas as asset protection outside the company ( assets held by individuals) and succession planning amongst others, there are also disadvantages that can occur.

I'm quite surprised that you believe to know my background and real estate portfolio and are able to compare it to yours. Property you (or I) own is irrelevant to the discussion, and a poor (and logically fallacious) appeal to authority. The "why would anyone incorporate... you can see no difference" remark is also misrepresentative and irrelevant as phrased. Either you can present a clear and rational argument of the ideas being discussed, without the condescension and rhetoric, or you can't. If you can't, then please spare us both the waste of time.

I do not miss the obvious, and it seems quite the contrary. You are presenting a straw man by mis-representing my argument and then "disproving" it. I used a ranch (which can be incorporated) as an analogy for the more traditional notion of a company, because the tangible assets are more obvious and better illustrates the principle that it (like any other company) is nothing more than property. In your example of a company "owning" a ranch as one particular asset, you confuse who the true owners/shareholders are. It is not the "parent" company, which is in fact property owned by someone. You are essentially asserting that (in the case of your incorporated ranch) you own the ranch, but not the cows since those belong to the ranch.

My assertion remains. A company (like Hobby Lobby) is property of its owners. Rights and obligations fall upon the owners, not the property.

HughC
March 27th, 2015, 04:14 PM
Thank you for drawing this to my attention, it's a very poor statement that I now retract. To imply the Judges opinions may have been affected by their sex is clearly wrong and sexist. I apologize for that error.





A company is not a person, it's not living, it's a business structure, it can bought and sold

Since it can be bought and sold, it wouldn't be a stretch to recognize that a company is property that belongs to one or more individuals. Property has no rights or obligations. Property is just a thing owned.

Hobby Lobby (or any other company) as mere property, does not provide employment. The owner(s) of the/a company do. If I own a ranch, and hire work hands, is the ranch employing them or am I? Does it matter what business scheme I organize the ranch under?

It can be bought or sold by way of it's shareholders selling their shares, the company remains. The question you need to ask in your example is who owns the ranch? If it's a company then the company pays the employees, if it's you your name is on the cheque. You might own the shares but your income from the ranch is by way of dividend from the company. In practical terms it makes little difference in the day to day running of this ranch as you indicate, the difference is the business structure. You need to think of a company as the "middle man".

I think that conceiving of a company as a "middle man" is the flaw in your perspective. In the example above, "Company" and "Ranch" are analogous. They are both property. Although assets can be compiled within a company, a company cannot "own" anything. Only "owners" (to include shareholders) can.

Considering I own rural property ( as you would say a "ranch") in several different structures being partnership and company ( tightly held btw) I think I have rather more first hand knowledge of the example than you do. Both have benefits and disadvantages and there are differences.

You miss the obvious, the company can sell the ranch and buy another venture/business and your relationship with the company as a shareholder remains unchanged....you still have shares in EXACTLY the same company it just doesn't own a ranch anymore just something different. Even if the company you own the shares in employs you you still remain an employee...just doing a different job. That you decided what the company should do doesn't change your relationship with the company as such ( ie you don't have to reorganize your personal finances...another entity does the buying and selling).

Given your thinking you need to ask "why would anyone incorporate?" as you can see no difference. There are benefits in the longer term for even family operations in such areas as asset protection outside the company ( assets held by individuals) and succession planning amongst others, there are also disadvantages that can occur.

I'm quite surprised that you believe to know my background and real estate portfolio and are able to compare it to yours. Property you (or I) own is irrelevant to the discussion, and a poor (and logically fallacious) appeal to authority. The "why would anyone incorporate... you can see no difference" remark is also misrepresentative and irrelevant as phrased. Either you can present a clear and rational argument of the ideas being discussed, without the condescension and rhetoric, or you can't. If you can't, then please spare us both the waste of time.

I do not miss the obvious, and it seems quite the contrary. You are presenting a straw man by mis-representing my argument and then "disproving" it. I used a ranch (which can be incorporated) as an analogy for the more traditional notion of a company, because the tangible assets are more obvious and better illustrates the principle that it (like any other company) is nothing more than property. In your example of a company "owning" a ranch as one particular asset, you confuse who the true owners/shareholders are. It is not the "parent" company, which is in fact property owned by someone. You are essentially asserting that (in the case of your incorporated ranch) you own the ranch, but not the cows since those belong to the ranch.

My assertion remains. A company (like Hobby Lobby) is property of its owners. Rights and obligations fall upon the owners, not the property.

A ranch cannot be incorporated. A ranch is an asset that is owned by another entity be it a company/individual/partnership or likewise.

When you incorporate you create an independent legal entity which is separate from it's owners. The main benefits are liability protection and that companies can continue indefinitely. The downsides are greater cost as regulatory and tax functions are greater and double taxing ( the company pays and so do the shareholders on their dividend).

"Why incorporate ? " Incorporation is not ideal for most small business of , say a married couple, because it just adds extra work and cost, using the ranch as an example if a couple where living on and running the ranch incorporation would bring no benefit unless they held significant assets elsewhere they wished to protect from the ranch business failing. Without other assets no benefit is gained as the end result is the same whatever the structure if the business fails. Incorporation becomes more attractive as those non business assets grow because they are protected from business failure, by default incorporation ( of small/ family businesses) is a business decision often based on liability protection.

Your assertion is partly correct in that a company is owned by it's shareholders and incorrect in that the obligations fall on the company ( because it's an independent legal identity) and not the shareholders. The latter is the reason for incorporation in most cases because of the liability protection ( which means the shareholders are protected from personal loss if the business fails). As I said before think of the company as the middle man.

Hopefully you will now have figured out why the "why would anyone incorporate... you can see no difference" was rather relevant.

mmahany
March 27th, 2015, 05:03 PM
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

dneal
March 28th, 2015, 02:22 AM
A ranch cannot be incorporated. A ranch is an asset that is owned by another entity be it a company/individual/partnership or likewise.

When you incorporate you create an independent legal entity which is separate from it's owners. The main benefits are liability protection and that companies can continue indefinitely. The downsides are greater cost as regulatory and tax functions are greater and double taxing ( the company pays and so do the shareholders on their dividend).

"Why incorporate ? " Incorporation is not ideal for most small business of , say a married couple, because it just adds extra work and cost, using the ranch as an example if a couple where living on and running the ranch incorporation would bring no benefit unless they held significant assets elsewhere they wished to protect from the ranch business failing. Without other assets no benefit is gained as the end result is the same whatever the structure if the business fails. Incorporation becomes more attractive as those non business assets grow because they are protected from business failure, by default incorporation ( of small/ family businesses) is a business decision often based on liability protection.

Your assertion is partly correct in that a company is owned by it's shareholders and incorrect in that the obligations fall on the company ( because it's an independent legal identity) and not the shareholders. The latter is the reason for incorporation in most cases because of the liability protection ( which means the shareholders are protected from personal loss if the business fails). As I said before think of the company as the middle man.

Hopefully you will now have figured out why the "why would anyone incorporate... you can see no difference" was rather relevant.

The discussion is devolving into jargon and semantics. Take "A ranch cannot be incorporated", for example. A ranch can be incorporated; but the land, buildings, equipment, livestock, etc... become assets. If one considers the "ranch" as the land and other material items, then of course that cannot be incorporated. "Rights and obligations", where I intended the context to be ethical (and that was the context of the Hobby Lobby discussion), could also be construed in other ways such as financial. Truth depends on context.

The issue is whether or not a company must provide a thing, even if that violates the owners' religious beliefs.

A company does not provide things. It is the legal vehicle through which the owners provide things (or not). More specifically, Hobby Lobby does not provide employment. The owners of Hobby Lobby provide employment. Hobby Lobby does not provide insurance. The owners do. The owners of Hobby Lobby are neither morally nor legally obligated to provide abortion insurance to their employees, if it violates their religious beliefs. It does not force their beliefs on their employees, and the employees do not force their beliefs on the owners. Both parties are free to spend their own money in accordance with their individual beliefs.

Although it pains some for religion to be able to "get away" with this sort of thing, the real shame is that only religion can do it. If the ethical opposition to abortion was based on anything other than religion, I suspect the case would have gone the other way. In other words, the government is free to force you to pay for something you find morally objectionable, as long as that moral objection isn't based on religious belief.

pengeezer
March 28th, 2015, 08:59 AM
A ranch cannot be incorporated. A ranch is an asset that is owned by another entity be it a company/individual/partnership or likewise.

When you incorporate you create an independent legal entity which is separate from it's owners. The main benefits are liability protection and that companies can continue indefinitely. The downsides are greater cost as regulatory and tax functions are greater and double taxing ( the company pays and so do the shareholders on their dividend).

"Why incorporate ? " Incorporation is not ideal for most small business of , say a married couple, because it just adds extra work and cost, using the ranch as an example if a couple where living on and running the ranch incorporation would bring no benefit unless they held significant assets elsewhere they wished to protect from the ranch business failing. Without other assets no benefit is gained as the end result is the same whatever the structure if the business fails. Incorporation becomes more attractive as those non business assets grow because they are protected from business failure, by default incorporation ( of small/ family businesses) is a business decision often based on liability protection.

Your assertion is partly correct in that a company is owned by it's shareholders and incorrect in that the obligations fall on the company ( because it's an independent legal identity) and not the shareholders. The latter is the reason for incorporation in most cases because of the liability protection ( which means the shareholders are protected from personal loss if the business fails). As I said before think of the company as the middle man.

Hopefully you will now have figured out why the "why would anyone incorporate... you can see no difference" was rather relevant.

The discussion is devolving into jargon and semantics. Take "A ranch cannot be incorporated", for example. A ranch can be incorporated; but the land, buildings, equipment, livestock, etc... become assets. If one considers the "ranch" as the land and other material items, then of course that cannot be incorporated. "Rights and obligations", where I intended the context to be ethical (and that was the context of the Hobby Lobby discussion), could also be construed in other ways such as financial. Truth depends on context.

The issue is whether or not a company must provide a thing, even if that violates the owners' religious beliefs.

A company does not provide things. It is the legal vehicle through which the owners provide things (or not). More specifically, Hobby Lobby does not provide employment. The owners of Hobby Lobby provide employment. Hobby Lobby does not provide insurance. The owners do. The owners of Hobby Lobby are neither morally nor legally obligated to provide abortion insurance to their employees, if it violates their religious beliefs. It does not force their beliefs on their employees, and the employees do not force their beliefs on the owners. Both parties are free to spend their own money in accordance with their individual beliefs.

Although it pains some for religion to be able to "get away" with this sort of thing, the real shame is that only religion can do it. If the ethical opposition to abortion was based on anything other than religion, I suspect the case would have gone the other way. In other words, the government is free to force you to pay for something you find morally objectionable, as long as that moral objection isn't based on religious belief.



Reread post #237. I stated that no Hobby Lobby employee brought the suit against the owners;it was the head of HHS. Since
there wasn't a legal connection between the gov't and the privately held company,the suit had no merit. That said,the owners
did not have to follow to the letter the health requirements put out by the gov't. They had the right to make their health choices
for their employees according to their biblical--not religious--beliefs. These beliefs are based on convictions,not opinions. BTW,I
don't think the gov't can force one to pay for something objectionable if there is proof that that requirement or service is unnec-
cessary and the status quo would work.



John

dneal
March 28th, 2015, 09:29 AM
Reread post #237. I stated that no Hobby Lobby employee brought the suit against the owners;it was the head of HHS. Since
there wasn't a legal connection between the gov't and the privately held company,the suit had no merit. That said,the owners
did not have to follow to the letter the health requirements put out by the gov't. They had the right to make their health choices
for their employees according to their biblical--not religious--beliefs. These beliefs are based on convictions,not opinions. BTW,I
don't think the gov't can force one to pay for something objectionable if there is proof that that requirement or service is unnec-
cessary and the status quo would work.

John

Ok, but I'm not sure why you're addressing this to me (maybe you're not?).