The world is officially upside down.

[ron l edmiston]

Public college for all
Massive infrastructure improvements
Progressive taxation policy

************************************************

------ may i add a fourth please..,

-- a "Gort" within each of us to dismantle "ALL" world-wide war machines..

ronnie with a smile

[caleb]

Just as a small note from a public school administrator: zero-tolerance policies are bad. They should be on the way out soon. They are lazy, over-punish, and actually dissuade victims for bringing their issues to authority. Now actually deciding who started a fight and how to dole out just punishment is a bit tougher...

Same thing with suspensions. They should be history in all cases except when a student is a clear threat to the safety of other students. Nothing is worse for a kid's development than to remove the kid from instruction and support. And in the case of free and reduced lunch/breakfast kids remove them from the only time they are getting fed in some cases...

I'm so glad to hear that there's some pushback against these nonsense "zero tolerance" policies in public schools. In a society where we're debating policies like "stand your ground laws," at the very least victims should be able to stand up for themselves without fear of punishment. Self-defense is a right, and it should be recognized in public schools.

As the skinny kid on the playground, I took a fair amount of flack. After a round or two of the bully, my father, who was a former wrestler, sat me down and told me that losing was not an option, and I needed to win. If some bigger kid bullied me, I was to grab a friend, or grab an object useful for self-defense. Not to be the aggressor, but to stand up for myself, and to win. I did, and I was fortunate to be in a school that still understood that all violences are not equal.

By using violence, I came to understand myself as a person in control of my own life. Had I been told to never strike back, I think I'd be in a far worse place today. I am so glad, in retrospect, that the school understood.

Treating all violences as equivalent does nothing but promote bullying. If admin actually want to address student violence, they've got to be willing to figure out "who started it" and punish accordingly.

[spopepro]

Of course, Randall Munroe often speaks greater truths. Today's comic:



Be good to each other and those around you, ok?

[C.Dyer]

The grade-middle and high schools I’m familiar with now have a ZERO tolerance policy about fighting. So if you fight back, your get kicked out of school. If you fight a bully over a weekend off school property, you may still get suspended.

In the 60s-70s: I got into a fight the first day of kindergarten with Eddy W. I forget why, I think we just didn;t kid the looks we gave to each other. Then we had a rematch every first day of school, all the way to 6th grade. By 4th grade, it was more of a joke, a tradition we carried out, as Eddie & me grew to be friends. We stopped in 7th, as we went to a new Jr high school, and figured enough was enough.

Funny thing was, we each didn’t get into many other fights in school, as (I was latter told) other kids thought we were nuts, and wouldn’t hesitate to fight anyone.

Different times.

Your capacity for false equivalence and strawman arguments is truly impressive...

[Matthew Strongin]

any thoughts on how trump dgaf about forming a blind trust or other things mentioned here.

https://thinkprogress.org/this-isnt-...c0c#.ss6m0j7q8

I think there are a couple possible outcomes.

He'll take it one step too far with a brazen move (or more so than we've seen thus far) to leverage the office to directly benefit his personal business interests, which will in turn start his political undoing. I don't think having Ivanka in meetings with foreign leaders will be that move, though there are clear issues with it. It will probably be something like hiring Mexico to build the wall but not paying them and then licensing the Trump brand to the US government to make the wall even more tremendous. He'll get a freely built piece of real estate with his name all over it in gold letters while making an actual fortune.

Or, and this actually worries me, he'll set a new precedent for future presidents to gain the highest office for the primary purpose of making money. And yes, all presidents have the ability to turn around and use their fame and power to make millions, but at least tradition limits their involvement in fortune building to after their term(s) in office allowing them to focus on the task at hand...leading the country.

[Will Neide]

Have you, any of you, reviewed the thoughts and concerns behind the genesis of the EC? That's not snark or implication that I have the answers, but I've scanned three documents covering it in the relevant context of the era. To me the concerns resulting in the EC don't seem relevant or are otherwise managed now. Arguably this election would be one in which I'd think a case, in historically correct context as I understand it, could be made for the electors voting for HRC (relevant experience, pop vote, tyranny of big states). That's not the purpose of my Q but it is at least ironic and leaves me scratching my head. It would also result in bloodshed which I don't want.

The USA, and any country worth its salt, will change....I hope. In reading what I did I was struck at how these guys were fallable, just like the rest of us. Rookie errors were certainly committed. Until I see the EC vote differ from a states pop vote, I don't see a meaningful diff except that rounding errors, effectively, get introduced. That is how it looks to me anyway.

Yes, many times.

Historical concerns at the time are still relevant today, although perhaps to a varying degree. To think that today's atmosphere is a valid reason to scrap the system is short sighted becuase the system safeguards for the future as well. In addition, setting precedent in the mentality of "we don't like the outcome so we're changing the system" is only promoting future problems, and ultimately a spiral to the bottom. The USA has changed, and continues to change. Take the election of of senators as an example. They were appointed, and now we have the ability (as a state population) to vote them in. Saying that we MUST change the EC to prove we are changing is false. The EC votes change, or can change, every 10 years with the census. Today, California, NY, Texas, are huge population centers. In a 100 years that could change. We seem to forget that in a historical timeline, the US is extremely young.

It has happened in the past where an EC voter differed from their state. It's not likely to occur today. Many states have laws ( I think) that require EC voters to vote the popular vote of their state. Few states split the vote.

All this hub hub about Hillary winning the popular vote is, like i said earlier in another post, a straw man. That's not the game, and any talk of her winning the popular vote typically comes from people who don't entirely understand the system, AND/OR want to keep promoting propoganda.

[Corso]

Your capacity for false equivalence and strawman arguments is truly impressive...

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this thread. Try connecting the dots sometime.

[colker]

Your capacity for false equivalence and strawman arguments is truly impressive...

At least he is defending ideas w/ his view of the facts. Focus on the facts not on who debates the facts.

[Too Tall]

Pardon my interruption only to say thanks for engaging in civil discourse here. The depth and diversity represented with considerate comments is one thing which elevates us, there are too many to mention.
Thank you and carry on.

[Corso]

Thanks Josh.

I find it curious that many when asked “what are you looking for?, What are you trying to active” concerning various social issues, the answer if often “an honest, meaningful conversation”. But if the conversation is contrary to their beliefs, it all begins to fall apart. The true honest answer may be “A conversation in which you change your mind and agree with me”.

This thread has drifted in some interesting ways, and has made me reflect on some things I haven’t thought of in a long time. I’m considering that a positive, examining my past to see how I ended up with the opinions I have today.

During my time on this site I have learned much: Others views, a bit of history, regional differences, and sometimes helpful info on cycling!

I respect the moderation of this site. I know my views run contrary to even some moderators views, but they are able to moderate with all fairness. And if a moderator has reason to ask me to excuse myself from a thread, please shoot me a PM. I know I’m a guest in this house.

[colker]

Democracy is a system for ALL the people. All the INDIVIDUALS. The idea that an organized minority(their representatives) can warrant a private space within democracy so their issues can be solved goes against democracy. It privatizes democracy.
You should not have to identify yourself as part of a small group, be it a sexual identity or ethnic identity to warrant your rights. Your rights are the universal rights as described in the constitution. Women's rights, gay rights, afro american rights cannot be different from universal rights.
I may be wrong and i wellcome any thoughts that contradict this post.

[spopepro]

If admin actually want to address student violence, they've got to be willing to figure out "who started it" and punish accordingly.

Which, I should add, sometimes means not punishing at all. Because when a kid starts a fight, and when digging deeper we find one of the kid's parents didn't come home last night and the kid doesn't know where they are and an 8 year old doesn't really have the capacity to process these kids of feelings, well, punishment isn't what this kid needs.

So it's really an issue of trying to treat all kids with respect, listening before punishing, and looking towards what's going to make things better. The best work happens preventatively, things like restorative practices, PBIS, and so on. Sometimes we (educators) take heat for being too "touchy feely" but we really need to help kids express their feelings productively and not violently. Because while I'll agree than sometimes fighting is your only option, it's never "OK", and even if there's not draconian school punishment, there will always be consequences. The eastern martial arts have the right philosophy in this way.

All that said, even though these are the official policies in my district, application is uneven. The right thing to do is often the hard thing to do and to a large extent we lack resources to ensure adequate training and follow-up support. it will be interesting to track, because in CA we are about to make public our new school accountability reporting. It includes having to report on chronic absenteeism, suspension rates, and school climate issues. Much of this data has been public, but not in one easy to find place with interpretation on if the numbers are good or bad. I hope other states follow our lead and build more measures into their accountability systems than just summative test scores.

[Too Tall]

Sure I have a take on what you are saying. During my career in IT I had adjunct duties as a volunteer EEO officer and was a trained ADR specialist. These both exist because "classes" of human beings were determined to require protection under the law from other humans who purposely singled out these people and treated them differently that OTHER people...these are basic tenets of disparate treatment and discrimination based on protected class. *Note* I am not a lawyer I just like to throw around legal terms to impress people.

Soooo, getting to your point. Buddy, wake up and smell the roses. In order to live in a free society we must impose restrrictions and consequences on those of us living, loving and rocking in this free society who can not, will not treat everyone equally or they choose to discriminate based on protected class.

You can broaden my rational far and wide to include much much more but that's what I have to say to you good sir on THAT!

Democracy is a system for ALL the people. All the INDIVIDUALS. The idea that an organized minority(their representatives) can warrant a private space within democracy so their issues can be solved goes against democracy. It privatizes democracy.
You should not have to identify yourself as part of a small group, be it a sexual identity or ethnic identity to warrant your rights. Your rights are the universal rights as described in the constitution. Women's rights, gay rights, afro american rights cannot be different from universal rights.
I may be wrong and i wellcome any thoughts that contradict this post.

[ericpmoss]

[...]You should not have to identify yourself as part of a small group [...] to warrant your rights. [...]

I totally agree, and emphasize the *should not*. My experience, though, was that of growing up bathed in the assumption that gays were degenerate, blacks were dangerous, Mexicans were lazy, divorced women were sluts, and if one of "us" was a lazy dangerous degenerate, well, let's not generalize. To me it's understandable that there is a backlash. Sadly, politicians since day 1 have used it to carve out their own electoral "safe spaces" -- some on the right side of the equality debate but in a token way, and others dividing us up so we don't notice their hand in the till.

[jclay]

Yes, many times. .

Concern for:

1) Tyranny of the largest state: Problem, not a problem, in this era? If yes does (present tense) the EC resolve it?

2) Native son favoritism? Same questions.

3) An uninformed electorate failing to understand the complexities of government, economics, etc: Same Q.

I haven't committed to memory the other concerns noted in my review of a few papers on the "why" of the EC, and there were more than I just noted, but I ran through the same drill on each one. I found only one where, arguably, a specific concern of the framers 's general era remained in our era AND seemed to be addressed by the notion of having electors free to vote their conscience. That's #3, above which, if employed this year would surely result in riots and bloodshed.

I am not expert on this subject but even a cursory reading makes it clear that elements of the general political situation were meaningfully different from current time; evolution of parties, trust in government, that sort of thing. It seems reasonable to think, or at least question, whether some of the mechanisms spawned in those times might not be relevant today.

I can easily have missed things, be outright wrong from a mechanics perspective (or other perspectives) but that's where I ended up. It's why I question the relevance of the EC to the current time. It has zero to do with wanting to change the results of this election.

Anyone may review the same material and point out things I missed or misinterpreted.

[Corso]

Democracy is a system for ALL the people. All the INDIVIDUALS. The idea that an organized minority(their representatives) can warrant a private space within democracy so their issues can be solved goes against democracy. It privatizes democracy.
You should not have to identify yourself as part of a small group, be it a sexual identity or ethnic identity to warrant your rights. Your rights are the universal rights as described in the constitution. Women's rights, gay rights, afro american rights cannot be different from universal rights.
I may be wrong and i wellcome any thoughts that contradict this post.

Colky, we have a Federal Hate crime law here to protect certain groups. When I first heard of it, my quick relation was “are not all violent crimes hateful, act etc.” I researched why we have the law. We do need it. I repeat: I agree with our Hate crime law.

Your Democracy ideal is nice in a perfect world, but we’re far from that.

I have issue if the Hate crime charge is thrown around as at will, much as the “racist” charge all over the place (no need to get into that again, can we agree there are real racist issues and other “racist” issues that not so?)

I must have faith enough in our system to believe that once an incident moves out of the "news cycle" and into the courts, the legal system applies the Hate crime law where it applies.

[Sbti]

Drumpf pays $25 Million in "university" fraud lawsuit. Remember the biased Mexican judge? It's a all his fault.

Sphincter Face. He tells it like it is. "One thing about me, I am not known as a settler." But he caved like a little girl.

He means what he says.
He didn't mean that.

He says what he means.
He didn't say that.

Get used to it suckers!

[Too Tall]

Chumming won't work here Sbti, we are way past it.

Drumpf pays $25 Million in "university" fraud lawsuit. Remember the biased Mexican judge? It's a all his fault.

Sphincter Face. He tells it like it is. "One thing about me, I am not known as a settler." But he caved like a little girl.

He means what he says.
He didn't mean that.

He says what he means.
He didn't say that.

Get used to it suckers!

[StR]

amen ..

Screen Shot 2016-11-19 at 22.34.42.png

[jclay]

Yes, many times.

Historical concerns at the time are still relevant today, although perhaps to a varying degree. To think that today's atmosphere is a valid reason to scrap the system is short sighted becuase the system safeguards for the future as well. In addition, setting precedent in the mentality of "we don't like the outcome so we're changing the system" is only promoting future problems, and ultimately a spiral to the bottom. The USA has changed, and continues to change. Take the election of of senators as an example. They were appointed, and now we have the ability (as a state population) to vote them in. Saying that we MUST change the EC to prove we are changing is false. The EC votes change, or can change, every 10 years with the census. Today, California, NY, Texas, are huge population centers. In a 100 years that could change. We seem to forget that in a historical timeline, the US is extremely young.

It has happened in the past where an EC voter differed from their state. It's not likely to occur today. Many states have laws ( I think) that require EC voters to vote the popular vote of their state. Few states split the vote.

All this hub hub about Hillary winning the popular vote is, like i said earlier in another post, a straw man. That's not the game, and any talk of her winning the popular vote typically comes from people who don't entirely understand the system, AND/OR want to keep promoting propoganda.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...ty_scholarship

The entire paper is interesting but drilling down to these sections gets to the heart of the matter vis-a-vis should the EC be kept:

The Good College
1) It can, at once, satisfy the symbolic aspirations and distant hopes of small states as well as the present and practical needs of the large ones. (I don't grock this.)
2) Certainty of the results soon after an election. (I think that we have the technology to deal with this.)
3) Flattens the candidates level of support and guarantees that the candidate with the stronger popular following will win. (Obviously not)
4) Keep it because we've had it for 200 years. (A really crappy reason, on it's own, to keep anything)


The Big, Bad College
1) Faithless Electors: Voting contrary to the results of the popular vote which they represent. Remedies to Faithless Electors are available: a) Strong Elector allegiance to the party minimizes the probability, b) legislation in some states requires the Electors to reflect the results of the popular vote and c) if necessary amend the constitution such that the EC votes are automatically assigned in accordance with the popular vote results. According to this paper the notion of how the framers felt about the Electors being, or not being, be free agents able to vote their conscience or judgement. (I thought that free agency was considered desirable, it seems that it may have been)
2) Inspiring Respect and Acquiescence: (I need to read that a bit more but see Wrong Winner for what I think, uh, trumps it)
3) Idealogical Purity, The Minority President and Contengencies:
Contengency: If no majority achieved and it goes to the House, aka "a horror"
Electoral Votes and Popular Vote: They don't match, the Wrong Winner problem. (A serious problem when it happens)
4) Unit Voting: The winner take all reality, which isn't required constitutionally. (So why do we do it?)

There is a lot more to read and I didn't hit all of the high points but the notion that there was no concern for the "Wrong Winner" problem is totally incorrect according to this paper. There was tremendous concern for that sort of outcome, there still is, and it's eminently reasonable.