Brian Fitzgerald,

I didn't scroll up, but one of us wandered off topic on the taxes board. I'll copy your post here.

You didn't say that you wanted to just get rid of the DOE. You said that everyone should go to private school and that a small piblic school system should simply be around as a school of last resort (I'm sure that some college would want to take a guy with a deploma from the school of last resort.) By everyone going to private school do you mean that they will all have vouchers so that everyone can pay for it? I had no idea that your libertarian ideals would go for the government subsedizing people who can not afford a good private school. BTW I'm not saying I disagree with you on this one just that I didn't think that you would take that position. -Brian Fitzgerald

My public high school had a graduating class of 472 at the beginning of the year. Some number in the three hundreds actually did not dropout. Please tell me what college those drop outs of the government run school would be accepted at.

government subsedizing BUZZZZZZ! Sorry that was the buzzer that goes off whenever someone tries to put words in my mouth. Remember that subsidizing is your word while you choke on it. If you give me a $20 bill on Monday and on Tuesday I give you four $5 bills to help you go to Disneyland, I must be subsidizing your trip. Even if I give you back what you gave to me that money is by all rights mine and is only accidentally in your pocket. (Incase you didn't notice, I'm using your logic here.) (BTW, you owe me $20.)

SARCASM ALERT!!! Wooo Woo Woo Ding Ding Ding! SARCASM ALERT!!! Obviously, only people rich enough to pay for the public schools and private schools should have any choice. The single mom who must pay for the public school or the private school should have no choice.

You are not disagreeing with me? (I'm arguing in my spare time. OK, Josh Gould will in a minute.

You are not disagreeing with me? (I'm arguing in my spare time.

You were the one who said:

Education? My dear, you are talking to a Libertarian. All schools should be private and teach whatever the parents want them to teach. Why not? It works well with everything else. Should a restaurant be able to bring you a salad because it is better for you than the steak you ordered? (Before someone says some children will be expelled from every school I favor a small public school system as a school of last resort.)

Nowhere in that post did you mention anything about vouchers, so don't go blaiming me for misunderstanding what you were saying.

Brian,

In case you did not notice, that post was way off topic on the Second Amendement board. It has less to do with guns. I'd also like to bring to your attention the title of this board is Vouchers, School Choice, and related issues.

I can't be sure, but I think school choice is involved.

BTW, be careful with cut and paste. emoticons (like "") don't copy. Arguing in my spare time is a joke (from Monty Python I think) about me arguing when i don't need to. (In the skit Michael Palin has paid for a 1 minute argument with John Cleese. Time runs out and John Cleese stops. After a breif argument about that not being a minute (where Cleese stops himself from arguing) Palin pays for another argument. Cleese's postion in the second argument is he hasn't been paid. After a few back and forths Palin asks if he hasn't been paid why is he arguing? After a long pause Cleese says he could be arguing in his spare time. (or own time - I'm sure I've got nits.)

What happens, Blue, is that time runs out, and Cleese refuses to argue unless he's paid. Palin pays, and Cleese appears to refuse to argue unless he's paid. In actuality, he's arguing about not being paid. At which point Palin asks why he's arguing if he hasn't been paid. After a few "No I'm not, yes you are" back and forths, Cleese says he could be arguing in his spare time.

Actually, I think that the late great Benny Hill is/was the best humor to come out of Merry Old England, and that Monty Python is just a bunch of wasted celluloid.
Now for something completely different.
Consult "The World Almanac And Book Of Facts", 2002 edition. On pg. 71, you will find a listing titled, "International Math and Science Achievement of 8th Graders, 1999". Of the 38 countries that participated in the assessment program, 18 did better than the U.S. in math and 17 did better than the U.S. in science. This tells me that the public schools are not working, or at any rate, are not working right. On this same listing, SINGAPORE DID BEST IN MATH AND TAIWAN DID BEST IN SCIENCE. This tells me that, whatever is wrong with our school system, LACK OF MONEY IS NOT THE PROBLEM AND ADDING MORE MONEY WILL NOT CORRECT IT.
Now, suppose you have a child who is about to enter school. Let's also suppose, just for the sake of simplicity, that your child is so bright you call him "Son". If you love your child enough to want him to have the best possible education, and if you are aware of the facts that I have stated above, you will NOT want to send him to the not-working-very-well public school; you will prefer to send him to some sort of private school. Also, let's remember that a private school is NOT NECESSARILY a religious school; it could very well be something like "Randolph Macon Military Academy" in Front Royal, Va. Now - assuming that there is no voucher system in place and you send your child to "Private School X", you are actually paying for 2 educations - the lousy public "education" that you have spared him, IN ADDITION TO the education you are buying him from the private school, that HAS TO perform AT LEAST AS WELL AS some other school in order to stay in business. What? You're not rich enough to pay for 2 educations, and there is no voucher system? "Sorry, Son, I'm afraid you'll have to go to a public school instead of a decent school."

Of the 38 countries that participated in the assessment program, 18 did better than the U.S. in math and 17 did better than the U.S. in science. This tells me that the public schools are not working, or at any rate, are not working right.

No, it says that American public schools are "not working right," not that public schools generally are not. Canadian public schools, for example, perform far better.

On this same listing, SINGAPORE DID BEST IN MATH AND TAIWAN DID BEST IN SCIENCE. This tells me that, whatever is wrong with our school system, LACK OF MONEY IS NOT THE PROBLEM AND ADDING MORE MONEY WILL NOT CORRECT IT.

Well, maybe Singapore and Taiwan simply have better public systems, with higher relative levels funding.

And how do you know that "lack of money" is NOT the problem, and that adding more money won't correct it? That's a declaration, not an argument. You know, maybe the low quality of public services in the US has to do with the lower level of funding, along with the neocons who are ideologically opposed to taxation (a more ludicrous commonplace philosophy there could not be).

Mike Brill,

I think this was inadvertant. I'd reccomend apologizing to all the women who ever lived.

Let's also suppose, just for the sake of simplicity, that your child is so bright you call him "Son". -- Mike Brill

Personally, my "daughter" is sharp as good Vermont Cheddar (or Vermont Cheddah.) If he didn't mean it, forgive him, chicks. (Hey, I don't think that would upset Cynical Chick. Hey, CC, forgive him, babe.

Josh G.,

I did not see the study. I assume from that Singapore, etc. have a smaller GNP. Seeing how those um, goverments, are usually like defense spending (Singapore, not Canada) I assume that they spend less. Of course, I'm assuming based on assumptions. Some answers to basic questions would be nice.

OK, OK, I just wanted to avoid having to type "him or her" and "he or she" a bunch of times, so I decided to specify that the hypothetical child be male - FOR CONVENIENCE TO MYSELF AND CLARITY TO ALL OF YOU. I will be among the first to say that girls can be smart too; in fact, while I'm not absolutely certain, I think my class's valedictorian was a certain Becky R. And whatever I may or may not say about girls/women, I will be politically incorrect enough to say that I like them and wish that there were a lot more of them! As Baretta used to say, "And that's the name of that tune."
If I got out my Almanac again and LISTED all of the countries that did better than the U.S. in math and science, I'm sure that SOME of them would, in fact, have less (per student) money available.
And as for taxation, it is nothing more and nothing less than a means to an end. In the science fiction role-playing game "MegaTraveller", brief mention was made of certain planets whose governments raised all necessary revenue from lotteries and had no taxation. I don't think that any serious person wants to abolish all taxation; it's just that (A) LOWERING taxes (up to a point) results in citizens having more money to buy stuff with, so they do, so the stores can sell more stuff, so the manufacturers make more stuff, so they need to put more people on the assembly line, so there are more jobs to be had; and (B) adding more money INSTEAD OF adding more THOUGHT to a problem TENDS TO NOT HELP MATTERS AT ALL.

Chicks (and Babe),

Is that apology acceptable.?

Mike,

I don't think that any serious person wants to abolish all taxation. -Mike Brill

Hi! My name is William Berry but I post as Blue Berry now.

OK, it depends on your definition of taxation (and serious.) (Some sorta sales taxes are OK and I'm hardly ever serious.)

I just realized something. Hypothetically speaking if Mike proved (I mean really unquestionably and irrefutably proved) that increased spending does not mean increased test scores, would it change your position Josh? If so, what would you have to see to change your position, Josh? (Keep in mind I'm speaking hypothetically. I probably will not magically produce anything to change your mind.)

If not, well, um, OK.

To answer the reverse, hypothetically, I would not complain if everything were hunky-dory with the government run schools. (I don't agree with the hypothetical situation; I have eyes.)

Generally I'm pro-voucher. Then I was given a disturbing thought. The government is getting its nose in the tent.

If we give Josh $2,000 a child, and he gives us back a $2,000 to use at a school he approves of, then the power is still with Josh. That transaction with Josh can be edited out with no harm to anyone but Josh.

Another reason to prevent the federal government funding education. From a Libertarian press release.

"A little-noticed amendment to the elementary and secondary education funding bill signed earlier this year by President Bush requires public high schools to turn over students' names, addresses, and telephone numbers to military recruiters."

JoshG and BF,

If I remember you are for Federal control of education (through funding they can choose not to use if the strings become too much). I may be misremembering it as I have not reread the thread. I guess you are for a poorer family who can not afford a private school sending their children to die in a foriegn land, huh?

If I remember you are for Federal control of education (through funding they can choose not to use if the strings become too much). I may be misremembering it as I have not reread the thread. I guess you are for a poorer family who can not afford a private school sending their children to die in a foriegn land, huh?

Well, remember that I live in Canada, a country as decentralized as Switzerland. Here the federal government has no role in funding primary and secondary education. It does fund postsecondary education together with the provinces, however. I do believe that the federal government must be able to enforce certain general standards in education.

As for US Federal control of education, some level of control or influence is probably desirable, but micromanagement isn't.

Let me get this straight. No federal involvement for you in Canada, but yes federal involvement for us Americans? Tell me I'm confusing you with BF.

"A little-noticed amendment to the elementary and secondary education funding bill signed earlier this year by President Bush requires public high schools to turn over students' names, addresses, and telephone numbers to military recruiters."

A little-known law known as the Military Selective Service Act requires you to do this yourself. It's redundant, but this is not a new concept.

I may be misremembering it as I have not reread the thread. I guess you are for a poorer family who can not afford a private school sending their children to die in a foriegn land, huh?

No becuase I rarely support much of anything that Bush does including something that empowers schools to turn over students' personal info for anyone.

Matthew Patterson,

The new part is requiring (not "asking to" but "requiring") teachers, guidance counselors, lunch ladies and trusted stereotypical janitors from Disney movies to officially through the school spy on the stundents. (I guess I should call them pupils, since eye balls have no expectation of privacy.)

BF and JoshG.,

OK. I give up. Who was arguing that Washington D.C. knows what right for children in Cleveland, Atlanta, Bilings, Los Angeles, New Bedford, etc.? (Excuse me, let me phrase that in a way you'll like. Through the department of education it can show its concern for pupils and turn them into productive citizens.)

The new part is requiring (not "asking to" but "requiring") teachers, guidance counselors, lunch ladies and trusted stereotypical janitors from Disney movies to officially through the school spy on the stundents.

Wouldn't they be doing this anyway? Aren't schools required to keep all kinds of records on students in the first place, and turn them over to civil authorities if so ordered? I honestly don't see the difference. The law requiring them to give personal information to military recruiters is *redundant*, as I've said before, but I don't see how it's any different from them giving my name, address, and phone number to every college and university in North America that asks.

Let me get this straight. No federal involvement for you in Canada, but yes federal involvement for us Americans? Tell me I'm confusing you with BF.

Well, you do what you like... doesn't really matter to me!

OK. I give up. Who was arguing that Washington D.C. knows what right for children in Cleveland, Atlanta, Bilings, Los Angeles, New Bedford, etc.?

Why would "what's right" be that different across the US? Are there not certain common characteristics common to all Americans? Is the US a nation or a collection of 50 different regions? There will always be local differences, but I'm not clear on who these cannot already be expressed.

JoshG,

So the Senator from Montana gets equal say as a local school committee member? This is an example of what is wrong with that. (Someone one the local scholl committee is supposed to care whole bunches about education. Any request from the selective service gets put on a back burner at best. The Senator from Montana does not care if people in New Bedford Massachusetts are upset with him. Instead of meeting with the local teachers, he meets with the selective service representative.

Do you always put a smiley when you are correct? (My definition of correct.)

Matt,

Some large percent (like 50% but I'm unsure of the actual figures) of Students fron the NY city public schools were not registering. (The relative merits of registering for the draft or not registering are another issue.) I don't know selective service did tracked "registration dogers" before but they obvoiusly think this will help.

I miSs teh Chcek spelling optiom (especially whem posting about scholl.)

Who was arguing that Washington D.C. knows what right for children in Cleveland, Atlanta, Bilings, Los Angeles, New Bedford, etc.?

Given that here in Cobb County they want to take evolution out of science books and contraception out of health books I wouldn't mind having a national standard that such things be covered. I mean why should the kid in Cobb who wants to go into science get a substandard education that will put him behind when he gets to college just because he lives in a backwards conservative county (the same county that house half of Bob Barr's old district and Newt's former district).

BF,

At least you can vote for your school board. You can't vote for my representative. Other than GA and NY you can't run for any post either.

Just because somebody covers evolution doesn't mean that they know science. There are plenty of college students, and probably college graduates, who WERE taught evolution, and who DON'T KNOW what asteroids are. There are plenty of people who were taught evolution, who think that Avogadro's number has something to do with the lottery. A certain political activist, who opposed any and all nuclear power, used to proudly proclaim that "the only Physics " he "ever took was Ex-Lax"; there is no doubt in my mind that he WAS taught evolution. There are plenty of so-called "social scientists" who can't tell an oscilloscope from a Bunsen burner, and who insist that evolution MUST be true. A lot of people think that "Lava" is nothing but a brand of soap, that an "Eclipse" is just something you might find in a parking lot, and who think that DNA is some kind of trademark, who remember being taught evolution when they attended public school. There are also people who don't know a microscope from a microphone, who have been taught evolution. Oh, and the last time I checked, "Newt" was still on the Board of Advisors of the National Space Society.

Read it and weep.

I've got nothing but a broken link Luigi.

Odd. It works for me. Try just using the url. It's http://www.randi.org/jr/120304youve.html#8.

It doesn't say who created the policy, but how much you wanna bet they have an R after their name?

http://www.theksbwchannel.com/education/4049149/detail.html

This sounds like a local school policy (an ignorant, prejudiced principal) not a political one, or if it is political, it's on the local school board level. Often the clashes there are not ideological (R v D or L v C) but personal.

This sounds like a local school policy (an ignorant, prejudiced principal) not a political one, or if it is political, it's on the local school board level. Often the clashes there are not ideological (R v D or L v C) but personal.

Ok as a parent I think I would have been ripping some heads off of administrators for somethign so insane. Before they built the new building in my school district our middle school had 4 floors and a basement where the lunch room was. The building had been built in 1932 so putting an elevator was not able to be done easily or cheaply.
So what the board and parents did for the 1 student who was in a wheelchair was get a special stairside elevator on the main stairs. When not in use it flipped up against the wall but rode on a set of tracks when in use along the wall. Sort of like those lifts on vans only modified. Now if a small town school could do something like that why couldn't that one?

I agree with Tom. Bad policy, but it doesn't seem political--idiots come on both stripes and on a local level, the R or D doesn't matter too much.

Fair enough. Besides, I don't know and honestly don't care that much. I was just saying it wouldn't exactly surprise me. After all, Bush recently appointed to the Civil Rights board (I forget the exact name, but I do rememebr it was started in 1957) a man who thinks the American With Disabilites Act "harms Blacks." *shrug*

How lovely.

2. INFORMERS NEEDED: FINANCIAL HELP FOR STUDENTS WITH AN ATTITUDE
A UCLA alumni group headed by a former campus Republican leader is offering students up to $100 per class to keep tabs on radical professors. It's not clear how the information is to be used.

Hey, good idea. You can recruit all those unemployed former Stasi (Ministry for State Security) spies from the DDR. This will help the US to become a better democracy (as much as the DDR was) and lower unemployment rates over here.

Just to clarify Constanze's quip for those of you who don't follow it*. The DDR was "Communist" East Germany, and the Stasi were its "Secret Police."

*We Americans are not taught geography and history very well, if at all. It would be wise to assume that basically our entire concept of history is just: the cavemen, the Roman Empire, King Arthur, (maybe the Reformation/Renaissance, maybe not), Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus, the American Revolution, the American Civil War, the American involvement in World War I, the Depression (as it affected America), the American involvement in World War II, Korea, the "Cold War" and Vietnam. With Robin Hood, Joan of Arc, William Tell and "Braveheart" (William Wallace) thrown in there "somewhere" between King Arthur and Columbus. --Really poor education.

Though the name DDR doesn't translate to "Communist East Germany", but to "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" (German Democratic Republic).

While "West Germany" is called BRD = Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal German Republic.)

So the country that called itself democratic wasn't, and the country that doesn't, is.

And Stasi is the short form of "Staatssicherheit" (State security), from the Ministry for ... , which employed - or at least paid - the spies.

Well, Tom, I did notice from some of the comments that many (not all) Americans have surprisingly little knowledge of Ancient Greece, or Middle Ages, and how that relates to democracy, theocracy etc, though several posters here are quite well-educated (and have their quotes better prepared then I do!)
But it's shocking to hear that the curriculum itself is so much US-centered. I thought it was more of a joke when I say that history happened before Columbos, or the Declaration of Independence... apparently it wasn't.
If the citizens are deliberatily badly informed this helps to explain the patriotic, misguided understanding of the place of the US in the world that so many Americans direclty or indirectly tell and act on.


While in Germany, history includes Ancient Greece, Middle ages, European and German history, it's still lacking in regard to Near and Far Orient, pre-colonisation Africa, Latin America in the last 100 years...

BTW, (or does this belong on the translation board?) why is it Joan of Arc in English? Do you call the city Orl'eans "Arc" instead, too? (And it's not pronounced like in "New Orleans", but Or -leh-own.) Because "Johanna von Orleans" is how we call her.

Because her given name in French is Jeanne d'Arc. Her claim to fame is, in part, ending the siege at Orleans, which is, I guess, why you might call her in German "Johanna von Orleans." I suppose it's sort of a "Worf, son of Mogh" versus "Worf, brother of Martok" thing -- same person, different reasons.

Over at Peter David's blog, visitor Bill Mulligan offered me this link providing more info on the UCLA group.

Just so you know, constanze, the English language edition of the Japanese manga (comic book) on d'Arc's life refers to her as d'Arc.

Yes, we usually call her Joan of Arc or Jeanne d'Arc, but her place in history is as "the Maid of Orleans" (with the French pronunciation or "Orleans"), and occasionally she will be referred to by that title or simply as "the Maid."

In this case, maid is the short form of maiden and refers to Joan's virginity. Though with America's poor history and geography education, I'm sure that somewhere there are people who assume the title "Maid of Orleans" belongs to a Louisiana housekeeper.

Well, Tom, I did notice from some of the comments that many (not all) Americans have surprisingly little knowledge of Ancient Greece, or Middle Ages, and how that relates to democracy, theocracy etc,

I'm convinced the only reason Americans know even as little as they do about the Romans is because the Holy Land was part of the Roman Empire during the birth of Christianity, and is mentioned in the Bible. Otherwise most of us would be as ignorant of Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius as we are of Solon, Pericles, and Aristotle.

Actually what helped get me interested in european history and romans and all that stuff was science and dungeons and dragons and fantasy books as well as very interesting and motivated history teachers in school. I wanted to name my youngest marcus aurelious but my wife would only compromise on the marcus part.

But I will admit I am not a very typical american either as I do like to keep track of whats going on outside the shores and do see the world as interconnected. Makes it a bit difficult to find a conversation in real world sometimes.

Because her given name in French is Jeanne d'Arc. Her claim to fame is, in part, ending the siege at Orleans,...

D'oh. *slaps head* I don't know what I was thinking (or rather non-thinking) to forget that en francaise, she's called Jeanne d'Arc.

Though with America's poor history and geography education, I'm sure that somewhere there are people who assume the title "Maid of Orleans" belongs to a Louisiana housekeeper.

Ouch.

I'm convinced the only reason Americans know even as little as they do about the Romans is because the Holy Land was part of the Roman Empire during the birth of Christianity, and is mentioned in the Bible.

Even though most Christians in America aren't Catholics, I'm still surprised they don't seem to know anything about Church history. Even if the unsavoury elements of early church history, or the corruption later, or the forgery lab one pope had, or the battles and conquests some fought, aren't widely known because they aren't taught to believers (don't want to disappoint people by telling about the dark spots, right?) - aren't at least the major, well-known things like the part of the Church in the anti-semitism, the shameful role of the Church in the Galileo trial, or the inquisition taught to the non-Catholics, only to show "That was back then, haven't we gone a long way to getting rid of that attitude and wrong beliefs not guided by the Bible?"
Ups. several of those outdated notions are still upheld by the fundie Churches. I guess I see where some could run into problems debunking some issues they might have to bring up themselves a bit later...

I thought people know about the Romans because some elements in Washington/the Constitution etc. are borrowed from the Romans (to give more respectability or something to the new Republic?), so it's "Senate" and "Congress" instead of "House" or "Parliament" or similar.
(And because the "Roman Empire lasting a thousand years" appeals to the right-wingers justifying the American Empire?)

Though why the Greeks got forgotten, I don't know.
Although I could suspect that the Greeks were individuals who bickered and fought among themselves, while the Romans had a tight military, authoritarian discipline and structure, which probably appeals more the American mindset of group-think and follow-the-leader...

But I will admit I am not a very typical american either as I do like to keep track of whats going on outside the shores and do see the world as interconnected. Makes it a bit difficult to find a conversation in real world sometimes. ...

At least today with the internet around, it is possible to get news of the world. When I was in Colorado in 1989/1990, the fall of the wall rated a 5 min. segment or less on one evening news. No follow-ups, no specials. I didn't see any thing like the numerous "Foreign news report" we have on TV (Both public channels have their own reports, and the reporters are assigned to numerous stations around the world for years, they know more than one foreign language, and thus, can provide in-depth, long-term, behind-the-scenes report on more than just the news of today. An US journalist flying overnight to an area of the world he isn't familiar with, when he doesn't speak the language, to cover only a recent event and will leave again after a week when the excitment is over doesn't come close.)
Same for major newspaper, who have several pages devoted to what's happening in the rest of the world.

Though a reporter on Telepolis, the internet newspaper, who's living with his small son in California, says how difficult the one-sided media coverage makes it to sustain interest in something exotic. He gets german newspapers, and soccer scores, even live feeds, over the internet, but because all the US media and friends and school kids only talk about baseball, American football, and basketball, his son has after one year lost most of his interest in soccer, though he was an avid fan before.
And if you can't talk to people around you because they not only don't know what's going on, but also aren't interested.. that must be hard.

I wanted to name my youngest marcus aurelious but my wife would only compromise on the marcus part.

But wouldn't that be hard on the kid in school? Wouldn't he get teased about an unusual name? (Over here, some names aren't allowed if they're unusual, ambigous, or would make life difficult for the kid.)

Kids'll make fun of a person no matter what name they have. Marcus, Erick or Bob all wind up being made fun of. People will find somethign to make fun of someone over.

Over here, some names aren't allowed if they're unusual, ambigous, or would make life difficult for the kid.

Not allowed?? By whom?

Tell that to Dweezil and Moon Unit One Zappa

Trying to find common ground to have a conversation is rather interesting at work as I'm not a sports fan so that leaves cars (we area car dealership) or a few other things, just generally not world events or even major us events unless it falls within a major catastrophe/big news event or someone's personal circle of interest. Fortunately at home my wife is pretty interested in things and there is a few friends and the internet after all.

Actually so far he hasnt been teased about his name much since he has a common first name and his middle is marcus (which he goes by) which isnt too outlandish. And yeah kids will find somethign to pick on tease about or otherwise make fun of a person for. I have a common name but wear glasses and was smart in school (chess club, computer club etc..) Two reasons right there for most of the jocks to get their laughs. But I'm not bitter anymore.

I think she is referring to somethign like the vital statistics or deprt health the folks who keep track of birth certificates and names and such. Although that does kinda seem alien to an american where you can name your kid anythign you want and when they get old enough they can file papers to cahnge it to somethign they want. (I know a person who is legally named luna silvermane she even showed me her driver's liscence and everything.)

Remember that constanze is in Germany. I believe there are laws (or regulations) as to how a child can be named.

here is a column that mentions a bit the naming rights in the US. The relevant quote is

I was of course speaking of English common law (which applies to the US and Britain), not the Napoleonic Code (which applies to Canada and most European countries.

Over here, when parents want to register the birth and name their child, they go to the Standesamt (citizen's registry?) and say what names they would like. The officials then look into a list of usual names common in our culture. The name can't be a thing or concept (Yahoo or Peace), or in exotic language (Hindi or Kisuaheli), or misspelled from the normal writing, or ambiogous (it must be clear whether it's a girl or boy, though in Bavaria, custom allows the boy to carry "Maria" = Mary as second name, because of Catholisicm). Though there is some leeway in the decision (and therefore, some arguments when the parents try to convince the offical), in the end, it's the offical who makes the call (although there have been some court cases over this, and the judges have declared what's appropriate and what's not).

Until several years ago, changing your name as adult was limited to good reasons, one of which was that your name was unusual enough to be troublesome (which brought up several jokes) Today, the laws have been relaxed. Though it still is quite expensive to have all official documents plus certificates and such changed to your new name.

None of this applies to people from other countries with existing exotic names coming to Germany, they don't have to rename.

And yes, children will make fun of other children if they want to, anyway. But an unusual names invites taunting every time (just as a small child or glasses will almost always be taunted), while mannerisms can be changed, or will not be mocked in different enviroments/groups.

Follow-up on the UCLA story.

5. UCLA INFORMERS: CONSERVATIVE ALUMNUS WITHDRAWS MONEY OFFER.
Last week, WN reported that a former campus Republican leader was offering cash to students to keep tabs on radical professors. UCLA officials said this would violate school policy. Andrew Jones shrugged that students would volunteer anyway.

So the students are ready to blow the whistle on their profs not for some cash, but out of (I assume) patriotism? Good brainwashing problem you have there. Every dictatorship would be proud. That'll teach the profs to try and teach the students to think indepentenly. Or give them bad grades - after all, they don't want to •••• any student off who could rat them out or accuse them.

Ops, I hit the "Post" button to quickly. That's "brainwashing program", not problem. And the red-dot word meant: "they don't want any student to get mad at them who could..."

Constanze: There is a difference between professors who are liberals, and leftist thugs posing as professors. The former are a part of college life, the latter truely are a blight on higher education.

... leftist thugs posing as professors.

You mean anarchists sneak onto college campuses under false ID to teach students to build bombs? Sorry, I'm having a bit trouble picturing this.

I also, going by the usual discussions on the net as well as they statements in the American newspapers and given by American citizens when interviewed by reporters, seriously doubt that (esp. with this offer in the background) young students will know the difference between "liberal, but still well within constitutional limits" = "somebody not as right-wing conservative as my parents/church pastor back home" and "leftist thug that is really dangerous".

Not only will this idea and offer give students the idea to report their Prof. every time they are angry at him, it will also stifle intellectual thinking, freedom of discussion, creative approaches - all of which are important part of the college education - because every Prof will now have to watch each and every word he says in front of his students, lest he get reported out of context.

That's why I said any dictatorship will be envious.

Orwell would be soooo saying I told you so about this.

Matt Pesti: Constanze: There is a difference between professors who are liberals, and leftist thugs posing as professors. The former are a part of college life, the latter truely are a blight on higher education.
Luigi Novi: Read the original story I linked to in my Jan 20th post, Matt. It didn't say anything about "thugs." Just "radical professors," whatever that means.

Radical professors can be defined to be whatever isnt conservative or mainstream, whatever that is. So this program is rather uncomfortably like somethign from a dark scifi where citizens are urged to report nonconformist behavior.

So yeah this is very bad and will be detrimental to the freedom of thought and speech. Which is I believe the point of the program. Definately imperial dictatorship. I wonder if their uniform will include a brown shirt?

So this program is rather uncomfortably like somethign from a dark scifi where citizens are urged to report nonconformist behavior.

R, that's not SciFi, that's history. Each dictatorship - whether Hitler or Stalin, or all the smaller ones - starts brainwashing the children in primary school and kindergarden to report their parents and any other adults who makes disparagaging speech against the Party, or the War, or the soldiers, the glory of dying for the country, whatever.

And young people are easily indoctrinated this way, because they only know black and white, are eager to help, they want to build a new, better society ... and because it's sweet to have so much power over your elders that they don't dare to talk in front of you.

It's a problem on both sides. Conformity affects both conservative and liberal "radicals." I don't think there are that many radical professors, to be frank--Ward Churchill seems to thankfully be an exception, not the rule.

It's a problem on both sides. Conformity affects both conservative and liberal "radicals."

But in this case, and with the current patriotic climate under Bush, the defining of who and what positions are "radical left" will be done by the conservatives and Republicans, so it will only affect the liberals, not the conservative radicals.

The aim of McCarthy's witchhunt wasn't to find the few real communist agents - that's done differently. The aim was to push back liberalism, by making everybody afraid to defend an accused, lest he be accused himself. Like terrorist sympathisers today. Or "radicals", whatevery they may be. After all, an open definition fits much better for most people.

I don't think there are that many radical professors, to be frank

But the problem isn't how many real radicals there are. The problem is that now every professor is under the spotlight, and everybody can be reported for saying something unpatriotic, which is therefore considered radical by the consies.

Ward Churchill seems to thankfully be an exception, not the rule.

What does he say or advocate that makes him a radical?

I think we're reading too much into this story. This is not like the government is actively prosecuting college professors; it's just somebody with a bee in his bonnet.

Churchill said that the 9/11 victims at the World Trade Center were not innocent, but rather part of a "technocratic corps" that enslaved people and were nothing more than "little Eichmanns" that received a fitting penalty. He has since tried to perhaps modify his comments. I'm sorry, but that's pretty radical.

This is not like the government is actively prosecuting college professors; it's just somebody with a bee in his bonnet.

You don't know what will happen under the PATRIOT Act to those profs that actually are reported. The Republican who made the offer just needs to call the office of Homeland security, and the profs will be taken away or monitored. Without a warrant, or proper procedure, or supervision, because that's all not necessary under the Patriot Act.

He has since tried to perhaps modify his comments. I'm sorry, but that's pretty radical.

No, I don't see a radical ideology there, only that he's either a jerk, or speaks without thinking. As long as he doesn't advocate blowing up all banks and similar centers of the "technocratic corps" or preach a cohesive ideology, I don't see the danger there. People have the right to free opinion, including the right to be jerks, even including incitment to race hate towards blacks like the Klan, or antisemitism like the Aryan Brotherhood. So why doesn't a college prof have the right to say sth. stupid, esp. if he then takes it back or amends it once he's realized that it was dumb?

Until something like that happens, it's just speculation. I can call Homeland Security now and report all of my college professors, but there needs to be solid proof.

You have the right to a free opinion, sure, but would you like to have a college professor that is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood and incites racial hatred in the classroom? No.

I can call Homeland Security now and report all of my college professors, but there needs to be solid proof.

You mean like in the several cases before where people have been falsely arrested under the Patriot Act and whee held without proper procedure for quite a long time? And when it turned out there had been a flub (mistaken name for instance) there was no recompensation, either, they just sent the people home to their now ruined lives?

You have the right to a free opinion, sure, but would you like to have a college professor that is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood and incites racial hatred in the classroom? No.

That's why I said "radical ideology". Does this Churchill prof support any radical ideology? Did he preach race hatred or similar? What else did he say besides those more stupid remarks you quoted?

And even then, I wouldn't want the prof. reported to Homeland security or similar. It should be the university itself dealing with him, or the courts.

Just found this article on a link on snopes.

Nearing a diploma, most college students cannot handle many complex but common tasks, from understanding credit card offers to comparing the cost per ounce of food.

If even college students can't do that...

Churchill came very close to basically justifying the 9/11 attacks. That's radical ideology, in my opinion. I wouldn't want him reported to Homeland Security, but I sure as hell would complain to the college.

And the fact that it made national news kinda shows that it's a pretty uncommon occurance I'd say.

Yes, I'd agree.

Is this really a good idea?

From what I understand, Harry Potter's OWLs and NEWTs exams are based on the UK's version of this idea. You only get a diploma if you pass your "O" exams, which are also used to determine what advanced classes you might want take for the final two years. The later exams are often used, like the American SATs, to help the universities evaluate the skills and potentials of the applicants.

I believe that you can drop out of school anytime after passing the "O" level exam (like Fred and George Weasley did) and still have a diploma that means something. Unlike the Americam system where sometimes the only thing a diploma means is that you showed up just often enough not to be counted as a drop-out until you finished 12th grade

Granted, most of my knowledge of this system comes from Harry Potter, the movie "The History Boys," and brief mentions in "English boys schools" type stories and the like which assume that you are already familiar with the system. So maybe one of our British members can correct me where I am mistaken.

Education is further politicized, as Texas school books get the FOX News treatment.

Thomas Jefferson and his ideas are out.

Joe McCarthy's a hero.

Taxes and the UN are a threat to American freedom.

Does it seem to anyone else that when tea-baggers are on TV talking about "taking our country back" it's the wrong kind of people "taking back" this country? Of course trying to get progressives to organize on anything is like an exercise in herding cats.

Where did you read the comment on Joe McCarthy, Luigi? He's not mentioned in that article.

I don't why history can't just teach kids what happened in, you know, history. Tell them what happened and let them decide for themselves. Why are they going into analysis of free market economics and the impact of the UN? Shouldn't that be the domain of some non-history perhaps more civics or economy-based classes?

Sorry, Josh, it was here, where I first heard of the story. It's not in the BBC report, but I have heard it before.

In high school all of that is generally lumped in together under the umbrella "social studies" when talking about the department that includes history classes and economy classes. Civics classes are rarely taught at the HS level because teaching kids to be good citizens & things like that are considered by some to be "liberal indoctrination."