|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, AZ — U.S. District Judge David Campbell today denied a uranium industry motion to overturn the Obama administration’s ban on new uranium mining on 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon. The ban was adopted January 2012 to protect the Grand Canyon’s watersheds. The withdrawal prohibits new mining claims and development on old claims that lack “valid existing rights” to mine.
“It’s a great day for the Grand Canyon, and for rivers, wildlife, and communities across the West,” said Ted Zukoski of Earthjustice, one the attorneys representing conservation groups and the Havasupai tribe in the case. “The uranium industry was hoping to cripple the Interior Department’s ability to temporarily protect lands from destructive mining. Today’s opinion upholds the Interior Department’s authority to take such protective measures.”
The National Mining Association, Nuclear Energy Institute, Northwest Mining Association and others last year filed four lawsuits challenging the withdrawal and the underlying federal authority to enact any withdrawals larger than 5,000 acres. The Havasupai tribe and conservation groups intervened to uphold both.
Source
|
On March 21 2013 13:52 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:32 Sermokala wrote:
Dude Isreal to USA is like what North korea is to China
That blew my mind when someone told me this today at work. There are some minor differences. For example, Israel actually wants its citizens to live comfortably, rather than poor and in darkness.
Yeah but that just makes it more true.
Usa wants its citizens to live comfortably, rather then china who wants them to be poor and in darkness.
|
United States24680 Posts
On March 21 2013 14:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:52 micronesia wrote:On March 21 2013 13:32 Sermokala wrote:
Dude Isreal to USA is like what North korea is to China
That blew my mind when someone told me this today at work. There are some minor differences. For example, Israel actually wants its citizens to live comfortably, rather than poor and in darkness. Yeah but that just makes it more true. Usa wants its citizens to live comfortably, rather then china who wants them to be poor and in darkness.
So your mind is blown by the fact that small countries which are invested in by larger countries tend to shadow the values of the 'mother' countries? I originally took what you said to mean something like Israel is 'guilty' of the same terrible things NK has been doing, but since that's not where you're going with it, I don't disagree but just don't see why your mind was blown.
|
On March 21 2013 14:05 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 14:00 Sermokala wrote:On March 21 2013 13:52 micronesia wrote:On March 21 2013 13:32 Sermokala wrote:
Dude Isreal to USA is like what North korea is to China
That blew my mind when someone told me this today at work. There are some minor differences. For example, Israel actually wants its citizens to live comfortably, rather than poor and in darkness. Yeah but that just makes it more true. Usa wants its citizens to live comfortably, rather then china who wants them to be poor and in darkness. So your mind is blown by the fact that small countries which are invested in by larger countries tend to shadow the values of the 'mother' countries? I originally took what you said to mean something like Israel is 'guilty' of the same terrible things NK has been doing, but since that's not where you're going with it, I don't disagree but just don't see why your mind was blown.
Well no but it makes more sense to me how we got into the situation america is in right now with the forced isreal friendlyness onto all of our politics. The smaller country that we're invested into is our only friend in the area that we're very interested in. that friend comes with a lot of baggage but its the only friend we've got and we've invested so much into this country that we cannot in any way risk it as an asset and so we are as slaved to the asset as they are to us now.
|
|
|
On March 21 2013 13:52 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:32 Sermokala wrote:
Dude Isreal to USA is like what North korea is to China
That blew my mind when someone told me this today at work. There are some minor differences. For example, Israel actually wants its citizens to live comfortably, rather than poor and in darkness.
It's not like the leaders of North Korea want their citizens to be poor and in darkness, it's just that's the only possible outcome given their decision to pursue autarky.
|
On March 21 2013 05:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On Wednesday, a panel of House conservatives hosted by the conservative Heritage Foundation offered nothing but praise for Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) speech on immigration in which the tea party favorite backed the same broad planks of comprehensive immigration reform favored by the Senate’s bipartisan working group and by the White House.
“I thought he did a very, very good job in talking about and embracing some ideals of dealing with illegal immigration and embracing some of the reform measures my friends are putting together,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said. Duncan has an A+ career rating from anti-immigration group Numbers USA and once compared illegal immigrants to “vagrants” and “animals.”
Paul was only the latest in a parade of conservative Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who have talked up reform in recent weeks. And if the reaction in the room on Wednesday is any indication, their message is taking hold.
“We’re not going to round up millions and millions of people, kids and grandmas and grandpas and send them to wherever,” Rep. Trey Radel (R-FL) said, adding there were both “conservative arguments” and “emotional arguments” that should compel the House to address immigration.
In addition to Duncan and Radel, the group included Reps. Raul Labrador (R-ID), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Dave Schweikert (R-AZ), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve Scalise (R-LA), and Mick Mulvaney (R-SC). Source
This is kind of misleading. Rand Paul made it clear that any attempt at a citizenship or provisional worker status would be contingent on some certification vote that the borders have been made secure. The current Senate plan they're talking about grants provisional legal status immediately while going after border control, and eventually a path to citizenship for those here illegally. It's a very important distinction. There is zero political will to oppose the newly legalized undocumented workers to continue to live in the US, get and hold jobs, and enroll their families in everything offered by the state and federal governments. Anything deemed temporary is permanent in this case: it would be political suicide for all involved.
It's not the Senate plan but it's something. I don't know how, in the end, all the Republican reaching-out endeavors to Latinos will turn out. There's still wide opposition amongst young latinos for the social conservative stands on gay marriage and abortion. I don't know if there's any sentiment that Republicans can't wait to deport everybody here illegally. Anyways, Rand Paul made a good move here and I hope he continues to make headlines like he did on filibustering and now.
|
United States24680 Posts
On March 21 2013 15:11 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:52 micronesia wrote:On March 21 2013 13:32 Sermokala wrote:
Dude Isreal to USA is like what North korea is to China
That blew my mind when someone told me this today at work. There are some minor differences. For example, Israel actually wants its citizens to live comfortably, rather than poor and in darkness. It's not like the leaders of North Korea want their citizens to be poor and in darkness, it's just that's the only possible outcome given their decision to pursue autarky.
I agree, but it's so low on their priority list apparently it may as well be true.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
they certainly want to keep the people brainwashed and deny information
|
TE has an article out on education reforms in the US.
Equally, it is far too early to tell whether all the tumult in education policy will lift America up in the international rankings. But its supposedly dire performance in these comparative tests needs qualifying anyway. The results of the two most widely cited ones, PISA and TIMSS, are inconsistent. TIMSS, which is put together by an international consortium of research institutes, puts America in or near the top ten in maths and science, with Russia among the countries that consistently beats it. PISA, compiled by the OECD, puts America much lower down but still well ahead of Russia. Neither has been around for very long (12 years for PISA, 18 for TIMMS), and although America has never been rated especially highly, by and large its scores are improving. Moreover, certain states, most notably Massachusetts, perform far better than the national average. Link
Damn right, now if we could just figure out how to fix a pothole...
|
I'd prefer if the US copied the European system of education with a bunch of post-middle school routes into technical school, specialty school, higher ed and whatever else (obviously my knowledge of their system is pretty minimal). So-called college education in the US is ubiquitous to the point where it means jack squat.
Like, I go to a "good" university. There are some people here, who to put it nicely, consistently form the bottom of the curve. They just don't put in effort or are otherwise unsuited to 4 years of academia. It's information they don't need and don't care about. It's a waste of resources for the school to half-ass their education, and a waste of resources for the student as well. They could be doing something useful with their time and money. The idea of "going to college" is so ingrained that people do it just because its something they're expected to.
I wish only people who needed the specialized education would get it. It would also eliminate the need for all this system of weed-out classes/ pre-reqs we have, which again are largely a waste of resources. They exist because so many people go to college, so its the only system to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I'm pre-med. I won't even take human phys till I'm a junior-- three years into my career because I'm stuck in intro bio, intro chem, orgo, etc. I won't really learn medicine till I'm in med school, and even then probably only in the latter years. Undergrad is just random shit weed-out classes and busywork that tests my determination and work ethic-- important, but ultimately its a waste of resources. Better to let them go to "med school" and see if they flunk. Much less of a time commitment-- if I work 4 years, get to med school and flunk, that;s 4 years gone. If I start the med track right out of high school or w/e and flunk, its not nearly as big of a loss.
I seem to be saying that a lot-- our college education system wastes resources.
I'm grateful for the liberal arts curriculum. I get to study some business (got in the B school today, yay), learn Chinese and some bioethics. It's all really cool and interesting. But the opportunity to be "well-rounded" is not worth the massive resource consumption that the current system needs. Plus, I'm sure there's another way I could learn all this stuff.
In the new system, I would probably be in a class with smarter people. My grades would be worse. I'd have to work harder. But at least I would feel like I was actually learning, and my degree would actually mean something.
Sorry for the random rant, lol.
|
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced that he will begin to move gun safety legislation Thursday night that includes a variety of items including mandatory background checks, which said will be included in “any bill that passes the Senate.”
“Later tonight, I will start the process of bringing a bill to reduce gun violence to the Senate floor,” he said in a statement. “This bill will include the provisions on background checks, school safety and gun trafficking reported by the Judiciary Committee.”
The move serves to begin the process of debating the legislation, which isn’t expected to come up for a vote until after Easter. Earlier this week, Reid decided to eliminate from the bill a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, saying they lacked the votes to pass. But he promises they will also receive votes separately.
“I hope negotiations will continue over the upcoming break to reach a bipartisan compromise on background checks, and I am hopeful that they will succeed,” Reid said. “If a compromise is reached, I am open to including it in the base bill. But I want to be clear: in order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks.”
Reid’s move serves to reassure pro-reform critics after the demise of the assault weapons ban created a gloomy mood for the cause of gun control. It also makes clear he intends to push hard to enact background checks, which have cleared committee, among other items.
Source
|
On March 22 2013 07:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
I seem to be saying that a lot-- our college education system wastes resources.
I'm grateful for the liberal arts curriculum. I get to study some business (got in the B school today, yay), learn Chinese and some bioethics. It's all really cool and interesting. But the opportunity to be "well-rounded" is not worth the massive resource consumption that the current system needs. Plus, I'm sure there's another way I could learn all this stuff.
I'm sad to see people feel this way. I feel that liberal arts are incredibly important for society to learn how to think and not what to think in an increasingly vocational system.
|
The Senate voted 40-59 to reject the Paul Ryan budget on Thursday night.
Republican Sens. Mike Lee (UT), Ted Cruz (TX), Dean Heller (NV), Susan Collins (ME) and Rand Paul (KY) joined a unified Democratic caucus in voting against it. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) missed the vote.
Republicans did not offer the Ryan budget; Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) forced the vote by bringing up the plan as a substitute to her own Democratic budget.
"There seemed to be some resistance among my Republican colleagues in bringing up the House Republican budget for a vote. And it's pretty easy to see why that is," she said in a floor speech before the vote. "The House Republican approach has been thoroughly reviewed and just as thoroughly rejected by the American people."
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) urged passage of the Ryan plan prior to the vote, calling it a responsible solution and arguing that it balances federal spending and revenue in 10 years.
The Ryan blueprint passed the House Thursday morning.
Source
|
On March 22 2013 11:49 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2013 07:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
I seem to be saying that a lot-- our college education system wastes resources.
I'm grateful for the liberal arts curriculum. I get to study some business (got in the B school today, yay), learn Chinese and some bioethics. It's all really cool and interesting. But the opportunity to be "well-rounded" is not worth the massive resource consumption that the current system needs. Plus, I'm sure there's another way I could learn all this stuff.
I'm sad to see people feel this way. I feel that liberal arts are incredibly important for society to learn how to think and not what to think in an increasingly vocational system.
It felt to me in college that you're getting neither of the benefits of either system really. They don't teach you how to think and you have to go through a bunch of intro/fluff courses with peers that are not remotely interested in really learning/engaging.
Haha sami's banned right now XD I was just thinking he should be jumping on this topic of all things.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
gonna blame teevee and lack of proper liberal arts education in k-12
but in all honesty, modern average guy's cultural background etc is higher than any good ole days. politics and social theory etc just are more specialized.
|
On March 22 2013 11:49 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2013 07:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
I seem to be saying that a lot-- our college education system wastes resources.
I'm grateful for the liberal arts curriculum. I get to study some business (got in the B school today, yay), learn Chinese and some bioethics. It's all really cool and interesting. But the opportunity to be "well-rounded" is not worth the massive resource consumption that the current system needs. Plus, I'm sure there's another way I could learn all this stuff.
I'm sad to see people feel this way. I feel that liberal arts are incredibly important for society to learn how to think and not what to think in an increasingly vocational system.
I hate when this is thrown around. I think "liberal arts" educations are incredibly important, mainly in creating useful expressions of events and human nature to help people understand them. However, you don't learn "how to think" any better than an engineer, physicist, or businessman.
|
On March 22 2013 07:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'd prefer if the US copied the European system of education with a bunch of post-middle school routes into technical school, specialty school, higher ed and whatever else (obviously my knowledge of their system is pretty minimal). So-called college education in the US is ubiquitous to the point where it means jack squat.
Like, I go to a "good" university. There are some people here, who to put it nicely, consistently form the bottom of the curve. They just don't put in effort or are otherwise unsuited to 4 years of academia. It's information they don't need and don't care about. It's a waste of resources for the school to half-ass their education, and a waste of resources for the student as well. They could be doing something useful with their time and money. The idea of "going to college" is so ingrained that people do it just because its something they're expected to.
I wish only people who needed the specialized education would get it. It would also eliminate the need for all this system of weed-out classes/ pre-reqs we have, which again are largely a waste of resources. They exist because so many people go to college, so its the only system to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I'm pre-med. I won't even take human phys till I'm a junior-- three years into my career because I'm stuck in intro bio, intro chem, orgo, etc. I won't really learn medicine till I'm in med school, and even then probably only in the latter years. Undergrad is just random shit weed-out classes and busywork that tests my determination and work ethic-- important, but ultimately its a waste of resources. Better to let them go to "med school" and see if they flunk. Much less of a time commitment-- if I work 4 years, get to med school and flunk, that;s 4 years gone. If I start the med track right out of high school or w/e and flunk, its not nearly as big of a loss.
I seem to be saying that a lot-- our college education system wastes resources.
I'm grateful for the liberal arts curriculum. I get to study some business (got in the B school today, yay), learn Chinese and some bioethics. It's all really cool and interesting. But the opportunity to be "well-rounded" is not worth the massive resource consumption that the current system needs. Plus, I'm sure there's another way I could learn all this stuff.
In the new system, I would probably be in a class with smarter people. My grades would be worse. I'd have to work harder. But at least I would feel like I was actually learning, and my degree would actually mean something.
Sorry for the random rant, lol.
Europe doesn't have a unified system :D and a lot of the problems you list are problems in NL too. Like going to college is ingrained into culture and there are a lot of unmotivated and lazy people here too myself included.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 23 2013 04:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2013 11:49 screamingpalm wrote:On March 22 2013 07:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
I seem to be saying that a lot-- our college education system wastes resources.
I'm grateful for the liberal arts curriculum. I get to study some business (got in the B school today, yay), learn Chinese and some bioethics. It's all really cool and interesting. But the opportunity to be "well-rounded" is not worth the massive resource consumption that the current system needs. Plus, I'm sure there's another way I could learn all this stuff.
I'm sad to see people feel this way. I feel that liberal arts are incredibly important for society to learn how to think and not what to think in an increasingly vocational system. I hate when this is thrown around. I think "liberal arts" educations are incredibly important, mainly in creating useful expressions of events and human nature to help people understand them. However, you don't learn "how to think" any better than an engineer, physicist, or businessman.
"learn how to think" is just an expression (perhaps incorrect) for a real phenomenon. there's knowledge in liberal arts, or at least it builds good attitudes and habits of thought.
|
On March 23 2013 06:45 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2013 04:24 aksfjh wrote:On March 22 2013 11:49 screamingpalm wrote:On March 22 2013 07:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
I seem to be saying that a lot-- our college education system wastes resources.
I'm grateful for the liberal arts curriculum. I get to study some business (got in the B school today, yay), learn Chinese and some bioethics. It's all really cool and interesting. But the opportunity to be "well-rounded" is not worth the massive resource consumption that the current system needs. Plus, I'm sure there's another way I could learn all this stuff.
I'm sad to see people feel this way. I feel that liberal arts are incredibly important for society to learn how to think and not what to think in an increasingly vocational system. I hate when this is thrown around. I think "liberal arts" educations are incredibly important, mainly in creating useful expressions of events and human nature to help people understand them. However, you don't learn "how to think" any better than an engineer, physicist, or businessman. "learn how to think" is just an expression (perhaps incorrect) for a real phenomenon. there's knowledge in liberal arts, or at least it builds good attitudes and habits of thought.
I still think they should teach liberal arts at younger ages, get them involved in philosophy and a wide array of subjects. Then as they get older they'll have more experience and know what they want to do, or at least have a better idea. I guess it's sort of what we do now anyway, or at least where I went to school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
