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.
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
They do it differently than us too, and I can tell you which system I like better, no problem. Don't assume he thinks like that because of nationalism, because I really doubt it. Edit : and I mean, the british do know what nationalism means, they have a past, which includes that sort of thing
On July 19 2013 06:05 KwarK wrote: You honestly see no difference between a deliberate policy of mass indoctrination of the youth with obedience to the system and a healthcare system? You think that's a totally reasonable comparison to make? Holy shit that pledge works well.
You haven't established how the pledge, in any way, shape, or form, can be taken to mean: "you must be obedient to the system".
And no, there is nothing wrong with indoctrinating children into being obedient to the principles of liberty and justice.
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
Since I was the first person to bring up the fact that saying the pledge is always a choice... I don't know why you're telling me this. It's everyone else in this thread that seems to think children are forced into saying it.
There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent."
I, the founding fathers, and most of the nation disagree with that notion. You (and anyone else, including the government) are welcome to the opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion is valid or true. And once again: I was the only one in here pointing out that saying the pledge is a choice and is not forced upon anyone so again this is irrelevant.
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense. Nationalism would drive me to oppose the scots for wanting to split up my nation. It is my values, derived independently from nationalistic and patriotic concerns, that leads me to believe in their right to self determination.
On July 19 2013 06:05 KwarK wrote: You honestly see no difference between a deliberate policy of mass indoctrination of the youth with obedience to the system and a healthcare system? You think that's a totally reasonable comparison to make? Holy shit that pledge works well.
This might be a bit of an exaggeration. Just saying.
On July 19 2013 06:05 KwarK wrote: You honestly see no difference between a deliberate policy of mass indoctrination of the youth with obedience to the system and a healthcare system? You think that's a totally reasonable comparison to make? Holy shit that pledge works well.
You haven't established how the pledge, in any way, shape, or form, can be taken to mean: "you must be obedient to the system".
And no, there is nothing wrong with indoctrinating children into being obedient to the principles of liberty and justice.
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent."
The SCOTUS got it so right. Thanks for bringing up their decision.
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense.
You're basically saying "my country does it better."
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense.
You're basically saying "my country does it better."
That's because it does. But I'm saying so objectively. There's no point in going "my country ceases to be better than yours" for reasons of pride because it ceases to be.
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense.
You're basically saying "my country does it better."
That's because it does. But I'm saying so objectively. There's no point in going "my country ceases to be better than yours" for reasons of pride because it ceases to be.
Seems pretty subjective to me. We don't have to constantly redraw our boarders to get along. Is that not a positive?
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense.
You're basically saying "my country does it better."
That's because it does. But I'm saying so objectively. There's no point in going "my country ceases to be better than yours" for reasons of pride because it ceases to be.
Seems pretty subjective to me. We don't have to constantly redraw our boarders to get along. Is that not a positive?
If only we could redraw Texas smaller in order to get along...
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense.
You're basically saying "my country does it better."
That's because it does. But I'm saying so objectively. There's no point in going "my country ceases to be better than yours" for reasons of pride because it ceases to be.
Seems pretty subjective to me. We don't have to constantly redraw our boarders to get along. Is that not a positive?
They're gonna vote to stay because we do all get along. But rather than force them to by having the denial of self determination be a core principle of the state we stay together because we actually want to. You seem to have created a false choice between constant redrawing of borders and forcing states to stay part of the union through the threat of force reinforced by a national oath. There are other options.
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
Since I was the first person to bring up the fact that saying the pledge is always a choice... I don't know why you're telling me this. It's everyone else in this thread that seems to think children are forced into saying it.
There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent."
I, the founding fathers, and most of the nation disagree with that notion. You (and anyone else, including the government) are welcome to the opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion is valid or true. And once again: I was the only one in here pointing out that saying the pledge is a choice and is not forced upon anyone so again this is irrelevant.
I went through your posts in the thread to see in what context you pointed out that saying the pledge is a choice, but didn't see anything; can you point me to it?
Simply because abstaining from reciting the Pledge isn't a crime, doesn't mean that the Pledge isn't strongly encouraged by the state. The only kids I remember as not participating were Jehova's Witnesses, whose dissent was encouraged by their parents, and I did not fully understand until recently. Social as well as institutional pressures are powerful things especially regarding the minds of children, and although I doubt you would agree with me, does construe a wielding of force to produce conformity of opinion. Case in point, if the "majority of the nation" has a mystical concept of the State, did that sentiment produce the Pledge in it's current form, or the other way around?
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense.
You're basically saying "my country does it better."
That's because it does. But I'm saying so objectively. There's no point in going "my country ceases to be better than yours" for reasons of pride because it ceases to be.
Seems pretty subjective to me. We don't have to constantly redraw our boarders to get along. Is that not a positive?
I'm sure Kwark can name other nations that also allow people to govern themselves aside from his own.
On July 19 2013 04:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Yeah that just screams fascism...
As it stands now, the pledge doesn't do so well up against my fascism test:
venerates the state: CHECK devotion to a leader: CHECK militarism: NOPE
Venerate: Regard with great respect; revere.
Yeah, venerating the state is so horrible. We should all despise our country...
Devotion to a leader? Which leader?
I really don't think you people have any idea what fascism is or entails so... I guess maybe that's it.
On July 19 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 19 2013 04:35 KwarK wrote:
On July 19 2013 02:50 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 19 2013 02:45 cLutZ wrote:
On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote: Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker.
Only true because or primary and secondary education systems are so inefficient and dont teach any appreciable skills.
The teach obedience, repetition, and response to a bell. Highschool was originally designed with the assumption that you'd go work in a factory.
You have no idea how incredibly fascist the pledge of allegiance seems to someone who didn't grow up with it being a normal daily thing.
But if you walk by a classroom while elementary school students are saying it, it's like...looking into a North Korean classroom.
Yeah I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you don't know anything about North Korea... at all.
Yeah, venerating the state is so horrible. We should all despise our country... You're putting words in my keyboard here. Venerate / despise are fairly distant along the spectrum. If you actually want to discuss whether the state should be "revered", as you say, that's another discussion...
Devotion to a leader? Which leader? That mythical one in the sky that hands down morals and cultural values, and is strongly tied to the national identity of the WASP. You should know that the addendum was added to the pledge due to fears of communism in order to solidify loyalty.
I really don't think you people have any idea what fascism is or entails so... I guess maybe that's it. It's a nice discussion technique to obliquely mention that you don't think others know what they're talking about, and leave it at that. Kudos.
There is nothing wrong with revering the nation of your birth and the ideals it stands for. If those ideals are abhorrent, and the nation itself corrupt, fine. But I'm not a subjectivist so I don't buy into the equivocation bullshit that leads to absolutist nonsense like: "pledges are inherently fascist".
God is not a political leader.
If I said: "You have no idea how fascist nationalized health-care systems are. The NAZIs had one, so it's fascist." I think most people in here would find that to be a statement revealing a severe lack of understanding concerning what fascism is.
And no, there is nothing wrong with indoctrinating children into being obedient to the principles of liberty and justice.
Um, yes there is. I'm not sure why you think telling children that they should never think critically about what liberty or justice are but rather exemplify obedience to whatever liberty of justice is defined to be by whomever is in a position to define it, which evidently isn't any of the children (since apparently we're going to indoctrinate rather than educate).
In no way did I suggest that children should not think critically about what liberty and justice are. And no, I'm sorry, liberty and justice are words with meaning, and like I said, I don't buy into this subjective "ideals mean whatever I want them to" crap. Liberty and justice have meaning, are ideals that are worth struggling for, and indoctrinating into children a respect for those ideals is both a moral and civic duty.
Education is indoctrination.
First google result for "indoctrination definition": "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically."
Wiki says: "Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2]"
So what you said about you not suggesting that children shouldn't think critically or whatever is actually just factually untrue.
Liberty is certainly a word with meaning. Justice, though, is a very broad term that means a lot of things, depending what definition you take. The problem here is that you're not swearing to "liberty" or "justice" as abstract philosophical concepts. You're not even swearing to liberty or justice at all, actually. You are swearing to the following two objects:
1) The Flag 2) The "republic for which it stands."
The "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" portion is a description of the republic in question. There are few problems with it, honestly, but they're hard to grapple with because the pledge is very short so the context we can extract in any definite sense is pretty limited.
First, in my opinion, "under God" is absolutely ridiculous, presumptuous, and altogether an impossible thing for someone who isn't a Christian to say honestly. Yes, I'm aware of various court rulings about saying it in schools, and such, but that's not really my point: every session of Congress is opened with this pledge, but what does it mean if one isn't a Christian to have Congress opened in such an exclusionary fashion? What if one is an atheist? The point is that the language isn't really representative of modern-day America, adds nothing to the pledge, and is possibly offensive. What reason is there to preserve it, then?
Pledging allegiance to an object (i.e. a flag) is silly and makes no sense. Flags don't do anything. They're just things, and they're not nobler than anything else. What matters to a nation is its people, first and foremost. Go ahead and count how many times they're mentioned in your Pledge. I'll wait.
Encouraging children to say this is idiotic because children cannot make oaths. Obviously courts have ruled that coercing the pledge is all kinds of wrong, but it's still the case that the state is promulgating it in schools in a way that's so penetrating that one has to wonder how a kid is supposed to avoid, resist, or even comprehend what's going on. You could have teachers lead young students in saying nearly anything and they would do it, because that's just the dynamic between student and teacher. In that respect, it doesn't make sense to call reciting the pledge voluntary, because that presumes that children are in a position to understand that reciting the pledge is neither an expectation nor an obligation, which is ridiculous. An interesting test of the validity of reciting the pledge in schools is to replace it with something else which is ostensibly a positive message and see if it would still be permitted:
"I pledge, to my fellow human beings: that I will always endeavor to promote peace rather than war, love rather than hate, equality rather than division, justice rather than injustice, charity rather than greed; and that I will always and everywhere respect the intrinsic human dignity of every person; and that I will never enjoin any prejudice, discrimination or violence toward anyone for reasons of race, gender, sexual orientation, class, religious beliefs, disabilities. Most importantly, I will never forget the common humanity I share with all persons, be they young or old, close or far, known or unknown."
There is a high chance that a significant portion of America, and many other nations, would reject this pledge if it were proposed today (nevermind centuries ago). And yet it is infinitely less contentious, infinitely more universal, infinitely less judgmental, infinitely less political, and infinitely better for the world than the American Pledge of Allegiance. If you were solely responsible for the adoption of this pledge, either alongside or in place of, the American Pledge of Allegiance, what would you do?
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense.
You're basically saying "my country does it better."
That's because it does. But I'm saying so objectively. There's no point in going "my country ceases to be better than yours" for reasons of pride because it ceases to be.
Seems pretty subjective to me. We don't have to constantly redraw our boarders to get along. Is that not a positive?
They're gonna vote to stay because we do all get along. But rather than force them to by having the denial of self determination be a core principle of the state we stay together because we actually want to. You seem to have created a false choice between constant redrawing of borders and forcing states to stay part of the union through the threat of force reinforced by a national oath. There are other options.
Your system is lovely. I still say mine is too. I'm going to crack a beer and stop arguing
Edit: KwarK, I thank you and your people for the deliciousness that is the IPA. Edit 2: And thank you California for doing something well for once.
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense.
You're basically saying "my country does it better."
That's because it does. But I'm saying so objectively. There's no point in going "my country ceases to be better than yours" for reasons of pride because it ceases to be.
Seems pretty subjective to me. We don't have to constantly redraw our boarders to get along. Is that not a positive?
If only we could redraw Texas smaller in order to get along...
Keep Texas as it is, just go over the dashed southern border with a sharpie. A fresh sharpie. Let those immigration laws apply universally, not just for those who choose to obey them.
On another topic, am I to believe that children should recite some wishy washy statement of positive feelings instead of allegiance to the republic? These same schools teach that there are debates, the constitution may be amended, wars have been protested, and rulers may be voted out. If there's a democratic effort to remove "under God" etc, that can be done. Does anybody believing in equality, social justice, and the lot have the political courage to propose that? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Heck, it even announces the symbol of the flag, even as the burning of it, done by protestors, symbolizes something else.
Already, the firefighting portion of the Forest Service's budget is higher than ever. "In 2012 [the share of budget] was over 47 percent," says David Cleaves, the service's climate and fire expert. That's tripled over the past decade or so.
Cleaves says it's not a crisis now, but "economically, and in a policy sense, you could call it a crisis in the future." That's because more money that goes to firefighting means there's less money available for prevention.
"We're burning many times as much acreage as we burned in the past," says Elizabeth Reinhardt, assistant director for fire management for the Forest Service. "And also we have many times more large fires. So when you have individual fires that cost $30 million and $50 million and $10 million, then if you just have a few more of them, all of a sudden you're gobbling up your budget."
Nowadays, the U.S. Forest Service has less money to spend on trimming back or burning undergrowth and trees to prevent bigger fires in the future. Estimates put the area of forest that needs fire prevention work performed on it at over 200 million acres, but the service is only able to treat about 3 million acres a year.
One solution is to let some natural fires burn longer instead of putting them out right away. That gets rid of built-up fuel, and it's cheaper than mechanically thinning forests or doing prescribed burns. But this tactic isn't popular with homeowners nearby.
"So many of the places where we have fire are near where people live," says Reinhardt. "Or, say it's early in the fire season and you have months of fire season ahead of you, and you just don't feel like you can take the risk of having a big fire out there in the backcountry."
And climate scientists don't expect things to improve on their own. Over the past century, average global temperature has gone up more than one degree Fahrenheit. Scientists say climate change is likely to keep pushing temperatures up.
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense.
You're basically saying "my country does it better."
That's because it does. But I'm saying so objectively. There's no point in going "my country ceases to be better than yours" for reasons of pride because it ceases to be.
Seems pretty subjective to me. We don't have to constantly redraw our boarders to get along. Is that not a positive?
If only we could redraw Texas smaller in order to get along...
On another topic, am I to believe that children should recite some wishy washy statement of positive feelings instead of allegiance to the republic?
Feel free to point out what's wishy washy about what I wrote. I'm genuinely curious as to which phrase or sentence you think isn't absolutely true.
As to your question: yes. Absolutely, yes. Children cannot pledge allegiance to anything because they're children, so a statement of positivity is better by default, since at least it's not masquerading as an oath to a sovereign nation. Second, what's so good about pledging allegiance to "the republic"? I don't understand what you think is so particularly important about declaring allegiance to this republic when you could instead declare allegiance to the principles which promote moral behaviour and responsible citizenship (you know, like the stuff I mentioned about being virtuous rather than a shitty person).
These same schools teach that there are debates, the constitution may be amended, wars have been protested, and rulers may be voted out. If there's a democratic effort to remove "under God" etc, that can be done.
No shit there could be a democratic effort to remove "under God," but unfortunately there are a shitload of people in America who actually believe that America is a nation "under God" and who have no problem promoting religion because they really think that non-Christians are either irrelevant or going to Hell.
The point of having things like courts and constitutions and bills of rights and so on and so forth is so that even when "the people" make a majority decision on some absolutely fucking moronic, it doesn't become the law of the land. Sometimes, this doesn't work out, since the SCOTUS sometimes makes weird decisions about things, but usually it works out eventually.
Does anybody believing in equality, social justice, and the lot have the political courage to propose that?
Yes, I'm sure many people do, but considering that it would be a total waste of time, nobody is going to bother. It would be voted down instantly on partisan grounds because it would be perceived by the Christian right as trying to legislate atheism or take God away from America or ignore the "Christian heritage" or whatever. It doesn't matter; it would be enough to stir up enough popular support to make pursuing such a movement unfeasible or counter-productive. What's the point of putting all your marbles in the basket to fix something that should be fixed when all it's going to do is stop you from getting the rest of your platform done because ideological people will associate you with anything from persecution to Satanism. Politics is about picking your battles carefully. What's more important: making sure that the Tea Party doesn't get to cut everything after the next election, or fixing injustices that, for the time being at least, don't leave people without houses over their heads?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Heck, it even announces the symbol of the flag, even as the burning of it, done by protestors, symbolizes something else.
If the flag stands for the republic, which I don't dispute, then why bother pledging allegiance to it? It's like saying "I pledge allegiance to y, and the x which equals y." Redundant.
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense. Nationalism would drive me to oppose the scots for wanting to split up my nation. It is my values, derived independently from nationalistic and patriotic concerns, that leads me to believe in their right to self determination.
Meh, right to self determination is overrated anyway. So long as equal democratic representation is given, I don't see why regional independency concerns should be more important than the advantages of having a bigger, thus internationally stronger, State (after the State is long consolidated, of course). Then again, brazillian history is full of quashing regional revolts (back in the 19th century), so it's partly cultural.
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense. Nationalism would drive me to oppose the scots for wanting to split up my nation. It is my values, derived independently from nationalistic and patriotic concerns, that leads me to believe in their right to self determination.
Meh, right to self determination is overrated anyway. So long as equal democratic representation is given, I don't see why regional independency concerns should be more important than the advantages of having a bigger, thus internationally stronger, State (after the State is long consolidated, of course). Then again, our history is full of quashing regional revolts (back in the 19th century), so it's partly cultural.
Because that doesn't make any sense? The advantages of taking over Canada are probably decent in the long term for the United States. That doesn't make it okay for you to ignore our right to self-determination, though. Just because the State "is long consolidated" really doesn't matter at all to whether peoples' rights to self determination are more important than a "stronger" state, particularly since that consolidation has always been the right of conquest/quashing rebellions, so... at some point or another it wasn't "long" consolidated.
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense. Nationalism would drive me to oppose the scots for wanting to split up my nation. It is my values, derived independently from nationalistic and patriotic concerns, that leads me to believe in their right to self determination.
Meh, right to self determination is overrated anyway. So long as equal democratic representation is given, I don't see why regional independency concerns should be more important than the advantages of having a bigger, thus internationally stronger, State (after the State is long consolidated, of course). Then again, our history is full of quashing regional revolts (back in the 19th century), so it's partly cultural.
Because that doesn't make any sense? The advantages of taking over Canada are probably decent in the long term for the United States. That doesn't make it okay for you to ignore our right to self-determination, though. Just because the State "is long consolidated" really doesn't matter at all to whether peoples' rights to self determination are more important than a "stronger" state, particularly since that consolidation has always been the right of conquest/quashing rebellions, so... at some point or another it wasn't "long" consolidated.
Right, so maybe back in the 19th century Brazil I would have agreed with the splitting up of Brazil in numerous mini-republics, similar to how the Spanish America did, on the basis of the right to self-determination. But today, with the State long consolidated and equal democratic representation given I would be heartily against any internal proposition to split up my country on the same basis.
Note that I made it clear I do not condone expantionism, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
Also, on a side note, are you Quebequois? What's your opinion on the whole Quebec independence movement?
On July 19 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote: Armed rebellion isn't allowed for obvious (you can't murder people) reasons but we have a large secessionist party in Scotland who are actually being allowed a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom next year. There is a large scale movement which plans to undermine the Westminster government, to create and empower a rival authority and ultimately to break away from the nation and because they're peaceful we give no shits and will let them vote on it. And that is how it's done.
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible.
Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works.
Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it.
You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense. Nationalism would drive me to oppose the scots for wanting to split up my nation. It is my values, derived independently from nationalistic and patriotic concerns, that leads me to believe in their right to self determination.
Meh, right to self determination is overrated anyway. So long as equal democratic representation is given, I don't see why regional independency concerns should be more important than the advantages of having a bigger, thus internationally stronger, State (after the State is long consolidated, of course). Then again, our history is full of quashing regional revolts (back in the 19th century), so it's partly cultural.
Because that doesn't make any sense? The advantages of taking over Canada are probably decent in the long term for the United States. That doesn't make it okay for you to ignore our right to self-determination, though. Just because the State "is long consolidated" really doesn't matter at all to whether peoples' rights to self determination are more important than a "stronger" state, particularly since that consolidation has always been the right of conquest/quashing rebellions, so... at some point or another it wasn't "long" consolidated.
Right, so maybe back in the 19th century Brazil I would have agreed with the splitting up of Brazil in numerous mini-republics, similar to how the Spanish America did, on the basis of the right to self-determination. But today, with the State long consolidated and equal democratic representation given I would be heartily against any internal proposition to split up my country on the same basis.
I've got no problem with your opposition to splitting up. But if a substantial state/province was able to consistently and seriously propose secession with a full understanding of what that would mean, and if the populace agreed overwhelmingly with seceding, then I absolutely can't see what grounds you'd have to prevent them from seceding.
Note that I made it clear I do not condone expantionism, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
I brought it up because it doesn't really make sense in the context of your argument. You can't really say that ignoring self-determination is okay if it betters the state, but then turn around and say that doesn't apply to expansionism because the state has been consolidated. Why does consolidation imply that some state/province should no longer have the ability to secede? If they were so consolidated, they wouldn't be wanting to secede, would they?
Also, on a side note, are you Quebequois? What's your opinion on the whole Quebec independence movement?
I'm not Quebecois. My opinion is that I would prefer that they don't secede, that most Quebecois don't want to secede (given referendums in the past and overwhelming opposition today) and that secession would be bad for Quebec overall. If an overwhelming number of them wanted to secede, then while I would disapprove of their decision, I would respect their right to make it. That said, they shouldn't be expecting any special favours, nor to be a "nation within a nation" or something like that if they do secede.
EPT
