quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Time to switch to the popular vote.
Pretty sure I disagree. And I live in one of those vote-devalued states. While I support some changes, I am unconvinced that a straight popular vote is the way to go.
I'm always interested to hear an opposing viewpoint from an intelligent opponent. Could you elaborate on why you feel that way?
What advantages do you derive from the electoral college that would be lost if we switched to a straight-up popular vote?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the reason for getting rid of the electoral college is less because of the over or undervalued votes but because of the winner take all problem. I would like the electoral votes to be distributed like they are in Maine and Nebraska.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, much too brain dead to formulate anything coherent on that. Short version: the last time we had a major discussion about electoral v. popular on Hatrack (probably a year or more back), I thought the pro-electoral folks made some good points.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only problem I have with it is that because candidates would have to campaign in more states (a good thing) elections would be more expensive (a bad thing). In a perfect world, this change would be coupled with real campaign finance reform.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the reason for getting rid of the electoral college is less because of the over or undervalued votes but because of the winner take all problem. I would like the electoral votes to be distributed like they are in Maine and Nebraska.
Then why bother even having it? If all we're doing is pegging the popular vote to a share of electoral votes, it just seems like a wasteful, added step.
I agree with your later point about campaign expenses, to a degree. I think it would end up being far less of an added burden than you do. Currently most election money goes to the most expensive media markets. Simply put, Helena, Montana, Cheyenne, Wyoming and Anchorage, Alaska simply aren't expensive media markets. If candidates decided to campaign there, it could be done very cheaply. Relatively. Again though, I'm totally down with campaign finance reform. It would fix a host of problems.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now, the candidates only have to campaign in swing states. The Chicago market (not cheap) saw practically no campaigning at all. If candidates had to battle over those suburban votes, they would have to spend money here.
I am not wed to the electoral college but changing the winner take all rules could be done state by state and has a chance of actually happening.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit that in years like this one, the electoral college pretty much ticks me off. My home state governor is running, which means that essentially my vote in any race he is in will mean virtually nothing. Simple familiarity of name almost guarantees he'll get all the votes my state has to offer.
However, getting rid of the electoral college sounds like it could be hell in practice, and lead to an increasing number of elections decided via lawsuit. I mean, we saw what the recount in Florida was like... can you imagine if we had to recount the entire nation???
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not wed to the electoral college but changing the winner take all rules could be done state by state and has a chance of actually happening.
Wait, are you proposing 50 states, 50 votes? Oh, I see. 473 districts, 473 votes. Or whatever number that is.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not wed to the electoral college but changing the winner take all rules could be done state by state and has a chance of actually happening.
Wait, are you proposing 50 states, 50 votes? Oh, I see. 473 districts, 473 votes. Or whatever number that is.
Obvious problem being that in most states, the entrenched majority party will want to hang onto ALL the votes from that state. California, for instance, has no incentive to split votes. The republican minority would still be too weak to attract candidates right away, and the dems would just be giving away a few conservative districts for essentially no increased attention.
On the other hand, long term, the idea that California votes might be had by either party would stir SOME interest in the fact that we are the state with the largest population and economy, and that despite this, there is next to ZERO campaigning going on in California. It would also give mderate republicans a chance of winning for once if the California primary actully Meant anything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would want to get rid of it solely based on how it makes our presidential election extremely vulnerable to vote fraud in a few specific locations.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
That's exactly the point of getting rid of the electoral college. States that are a virtual lock get almost no lip service from either candidate, and a GOP candidate has no problem ripping a solidly blue state because they KNOW they won't get the votes, and have no problem ignoring their concerns. But it's just as bad for a Democratic candidate who can tack to the center by throwing a solidly blue state overboard. The result is that no one there gets their issues heard.
I think it would go a long way toward getting rid of our ridiculous, dysfunctional, and harmful primary system. If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose a total revamp of the primary system well before I chose getting rid of the electoral college. The former does far more damage than the latter.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does, but usually by that point, a field of 8 or 9 has already been winnowed down to a field of 2 or 3. The first four states are all about attrition. Most candidates who don't finish in the top two or three drop out after that.
California is also a pretty expensive place to campaign. Most candidates, especially the lower tier ones, would rather put their dollars to more use in early states. If they win an early state, they can gather momentum and cash going forward. States like California get very little attention until closer to election day, and even then, people rarely visit. Also, I believe, California does not have a winner-take-all delegate system, which makes winning it a sort of ho-hum affair when everyone is likely to pull support from the state as a whole.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The new calendar has 4 "traditional" states first, then the proportional states, and winner take all states last. That's some kind of move toward primary reform. Well, it's a change anyway.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The new calendar has 4 "traditional" states first, then the proportional states, and winner take all states last. That's some kind of move toward primary reform. Well, it's a change anyway.
Not really. Having those four as the permanent filter through which the other 46 states are allowed to vote for the leftovers is absolutely awful. Those four states simply do NOT represent the rest of the country, especially Iowa and New Hampshire. It also forces candidates to kowtow to the demands of those specific states, to the detriment of the rest of us. By the time they make it out of the crucible, only a few candidates are still viable, and the race becomes a little more fair, a little more traditional, but it's the early voting states that are the biggest problem. They should NOT have a monopoly on the first primaries.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The California Primary means a lot. I think. Doesn't it have a lot of delegates?
It has more delegates than any other state. It also matters far less, because it is at the end of the primary season (now pushed up to super-duper tuesday), and it is utterly predictable- I would need to check the charts on this to confirm, but I believe it has gone with front runners in every election in recent memory. There's just nothing else to go on- our primary is determined by press coverage of other primaries.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The new calendar has 4 "traditional" states first, then the proportional states, and winner take all states last. That's some kind of move toward primary reform. Well, it's a change anyway.
Not really. Having those four as the permanent filter through which the other 46 states are allowed to vote for the leftovers is absolutely awful. Those four states simply do NOT represent the rest of the country, especially Iowa and New Hampshire. It also forces candidates to kowtow to the demands of those specific states, to the detriment of the rest of us. By the time they make it out of the crucible, only a few candidates are still viable, and the race becomes a little more fair, a little more traditional, but it's the early voting states that are the biggest problem. They should NOT have a monopoly on the first primaries.
Absolutely right. It's the most damned archaic thing about all this. That's just plain common sense. We need either a rotating or a lotary schedule of primary voting order, if we don't wish to have all the primaries at one time. The idea that a state with a population 1/20th of my own deciding who I get to cast a vote for is repugnant to me.
The SF Bay Area alone has about 4 times the population of New Hampshire. And NH gets to be the darling of American politics, why? Because they say so? They get to just keep pushing back their primary, year after year, and we just sit around going, oh well, what are you gonna do?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Among adults 18-34, the share of long-distance moves across state lines fell last year to roughly 3.2 million people, or 4.4 percent, the lowest level since World War II. For college graduates, who historically are more likely to relocate out of state, long-distance moves dipped to 2.4 percent.
Opting to stay put, roughly 5.9 million Americans 25-34 last year lived with their parents, an increase of 25 percent from before the recession. Driven by a record 1 in 5 young men who doubled up in households, men are now nearly twice as likely as women to live with their parents.
Another interesting thing I've read is that a growing number of students with 80k+ debts are learning. "Hey, wait a second, I can get a job somewhere foreign out of country and screw this debt."
The US should pay students to go to school.
IP: Logged |
quote:Somebody moderate enough to govern, which requires a willingness to compromise in order to get the best possible deal rather than no deal at all.
Somebody who is brave enough to do the politically unpopular things that are required to save the American economy -- a Ryan, a Boehner. They exist in the Republican Party. At the moment, they don't exist in the Democratic Party -- the Inquisition has burned them all.
Granted, the Ryan plan was 'politically unpopular' as well as 'entirely unpopular,' but,
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another interesting thing I've read is that a growing number of students with 80k+ debts are learning. "Hey, wait a second, I can get a job somewhere foreign out of country and screw this debt."
Perhaps a growing number, but if that number exceeds triple digits I'd be surprised.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh hey everybody, it's that time again!
quote:Somebody moderate enough to govern, which requires a willingness to compromise in order to get the best possible deal rather than no deal at all.
Somebody who is brave enough to do the politically unpopular things that are required to save the American economy -- a Ryan, a Boehner. They exist in the Republican Party. At the moment, they don't exist in the Democratic Party -- the Inquisition has burned them all.
Granted, the Ryan plan was 'politically unpopular' as well as 'entirely unpopular,' but,
What bizarro op-ed piece said that?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll give you three guesses, but first here's another highlight from it:
quote:Obama is the most vulnerable incumbent since Jimmy Carter -- potentially more vulnerable. If the Republicans remember that It's The Economy, and nominate a candidate who is about the economy and nothing else, they will win in a landslide, sweep the Congress, and govern for at least two years, until they screw it up and lose a house or two.
But if the Republicans nominate a Rick Perry or a Michele Bachmann, there is every chance, after the media are through with them, that Obama will eke out a victory.
Republicans right now seem hellbent on nominated (sp) William Jennings Bryan. And if that name means nothing to you, that not only says something awful about your high school education, it also explains why history is so likely to repeat itself. William Jennings Bryan is the primary reason why the Democratic Party played dead between Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.
yes, only with the lockstep liberal media's devout aid could obama apparently 'eke out' a victory against Bachmann. Bachmann.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The economy being in a bad place is a huge advantage for any person seeking to unseat a sitting president.
He's absolutely right, that if the Republicans field an "economy candidate, with moderate conservative credentials" they could very easily win.
He's wrong that it would be hard for Obama to win against Bachmann, but Rick Perry could still prove a difficult opponent.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it would be the media's fault. Anyone who helps people access Bachmann's words would technically be at fault. She's far more powerful a candidate when she's talked about, rather than actually listened to.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: He's absolutely right, that if the Republicans field an "economy candidate, with moderate conservative credentials" they could very easily win.
The presented delineations of who counts as 'moderates' who are 'willing to compromise' are, however, completely baffling. Most of it is, really.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part about the inquisition made me shake my head, too. Which party is it that has talked about tests of ideological purity and exposing politicians who are "un-American" and has even invented an acronym for people who are allegedly members of the party in name only?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's what the Democrats did with Clinton and then with Obama -- they lied. They had a certified leftwinger in both cases, and then pretended he was a moderate. Electing Clinton, it was a matter of pounding Bush with the economy. Electing Obama, it was a matter of saying nothing ("change") and pounding McCain with Bush.
I do wonder, often, which of Obama's actual enacted policies Card is looking at to come to the conclusion that he (Obama) is a 'fanatical idealogue'. It's just so weird. I mean, Card is obviously much further to the right than I am, for all his pretense of Democratic party membership (for a long time I bought into his stance of 'one of the true remaining Actual Democrats', but I think that time has long since past-it becomes difficult to credit such claims when one is on record supporting so many, well, Republican candidates). So in the ordinary course of things, Card would find Obama quite a bit further left of center than I would. That's natural.
But 'fanatical idealogue'? I can't wrap my head around it. What political calculations arrive at that conclusion? They certainly don't involve looking at other fanatical left-wing ideologues and measuring their satisfaction with Obama, that's for sure.
quote:I think of Clinton's last six years as the Gingrich presidency, plus Monica. Clinton was a disaster for America (his foreign policy handed us Osama bin Laden), but Gingrich was a pretty good prime minister.
Wait, what? How on Earth doesn't Card also say 'Reagan's and Bush (Sr.)'s policies gave us ObL?
---------
I figure where better to discuss Card's words than in the Republican thread?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Another interesting thing I've read is that a growing number of students with 80k+ debts are learning. "Hey, wait a second, I can get a job somewhere foreign out of country and screw this debt."
Perhaps a growing number, but if that number exceeds triple digits I'd be surprised.
quote:The US should pay students to go to school.
No, it shouldn't.
Yes they should. My vocational tuition is only 100$ a semester my University courses only cost about 800$ a semester how is it of any long term good to have students with 100k+ debts in the United States?
University and college education should be free or next-to-free, it's an investment. This "saving for college" bs Americans have accepted a truth is completely asinine.
IP: Logged |
posted
What's really amazing here is that just a few weeks ago our gracious host had talked about how President Obama had finally learned how to compromise, so maybe, if faced with Perry/Bachmann, we should keep him in office instead, with this pseudo-endorsement:
quote: At least Obama has learned how to compromise -- grudgingly, petulantly, like a toddler deprived of a toy, but he has learned to comply with reality now and then. Better the clown we have than the clowns piling out of the teeny-tiny car.
While I'm an Obama supporter (because I don't see him as ideological), and don't want Perry anywhere near the nomination . . . I'm morbidly curious to see what would be included in the political paragraphs of the review columns in the event of a Obama/Perry race.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes they should. My vocational tuition is only 100$ a semester my University courses only cost about 800$ a semester how is it of any long term good to have students with 100k+ debts in the United States?
Wow, talk about a false dichotomy. The options aren't restricted to "nearly free" and "100k+ debts".
edit: and there are many options for quality (compared against colleges in other countries) educations that are affordable, in the US. People are choosing options that pay more in part because of perceived value. The structure of US higher education financing is far from ideal, but choosing not to subsidize public education by fiat is no doubt one of the reasons that the US has the most, best schools in the world. It is wrong to assume that if we just started publicly funding education that level of performance would go away.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: The part about the inquisition made me shake my head, too. Which party is it that has talked about tests of ideological purity and exposing politicians who are "un-American" and has even invented an acronym for people who are allegedly members of the party in name only?
I don't think Mr. Card was intending to contrast the Democrats in this regard with the Republicans. I'm sure he's aware that Republicans have tests of purity, in that same essay he uses the term RINO and indicates that only such a candidate could get elected for the Republicans, but probably wouldn't get the nomination.
You have to remember too that since he self identifies as a Democrat, he would only be exposed to people saying he's not really a Democrat because of beliefs X, Y, and Z. He wouldn't have somebody questioning his conservative credentials, or calling him a RINO since he's never called himself a conservative or a Republican.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Yes they should. My vocational tuition is only 100$ a semester my University courses only cost about 800$ a semester how is it of any long term good to have students with 100k+ debts in the United States?
Wow, talk about a false dichotomy. The options aren't restricted to "nearly free" and "100k+ debts".
edit: and there are many options for quality (compared against colleges in other countries) educations that are affordable, in the US. People are choosing options that pay more in part because of perceived value. The structure of US higher education financing is far from ideal, but choosing not to subsidize public education by fiat is no doubt one of the reasons that the US has the most, best schools in the world. It is wrong to assume that if we just started publicly funding education that level of performance would go away.
How does subsidizing education result in "worse" education in your view? So far all I see is a broken system that encourages massive debts with nothing to force the price downwards. Concordia University and McGill in Quebec are both top 50 in the world in their respective categories (Business/Engineer and Medical) are we have it "subsidized".
I'm also given to understand that we have sockets in our classrooms to plug stuff in and that there are plenty of "world" class universities in the states don't.
IP: Logged |
quote:How does subsidizing education result in "worse" education in your view? So far all I see is a broken system that encourages massive debts with nothing to force the price downwards. Concordia University and McGill in Quebec are both top 50 in the world in their respective categories (Business/Engineer and Medical) are we have it "subsidized".
Top 50 in the world in one area of study? The US has numerous universities that are top 50 in the world in dozens of areas of study. Quite a few US mid-rank universities have an area they're top 50 in the world in. The universities you hold out as examples of your success, judged in the way you hold them out as examples of success, would only put them in the middle rank of US institutions. (Not that they aren't good schools; they are). The US has dozens and dozens of solid middle rank universities and colleges, and the quality of education at those institutions routinely trounces the quality of education at middle rank schools in the rest of the world. Not that there aren't stand out institutions in lots of other countries, just that we have more of them, and that more importantly, we have lots of solid schools below the stand out institutions.
Not subsidizing education as much has lead to US universities being able to secure top faculty, with top facilities, top support staff, and so forth. Some universities in countries with subsidized education put together similar formulas, but their money is drawn from the same pool as that at other institutions, meaning that less prestigious colleges and universities frequently end up unable to afford top talent and such in any area.
quote:I'm also given to understand that we have sockets in our classrooms to plug stuff in and that there are plenty of "world" class universities in the states don't.
This is not a real argument. Given the relative quality of our top institutions, I am entirely comfortable with some schools not having bothered putting chargers in classrooms. Especially as, in many subject areas, the best teachers I've seen teach frequently ban the use of laptops.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think Mr. Card was intending to contrast the Democrats in this regard with the Republicans. I'm sure he's aware that Republicans have tests of purity, in that same essay he uses the term RINO and indicates that only such a candidate could get elected for the Republicans, but probably wouldn't get the nomination.
You have to remember too that since he self identifies as a Democrat, he would only be exposed to people saying he's not really a Democrat because of beliefs X, Y, and Z. He wouldn't have somebody questioning his conservative credentials, or calling him a RINO since he's never called himself a conservative or a Republican.
I'm not sure I follow you. I was saying that I think it's ironic that he talks about Democrats being burned by the inquisition, when I think it's the Republican Party that's having the inquisition.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by talsmitde: What's really amazing here is that just a few weeks ago our gracious host had talked about how President Obama had finally learned how to compromise, so maybe, if faced with Perry/Bachmann, we should keep him in office instead, with this pseudo-endorsement:
I find the two latest pieces somewhat reminiscent of when members of the GOP dare to criticize Rush - they make some relatively mild criticism and then the next day you see them humbly saying they were wrong. Similarly, in advocating for Romney, OSC made the obvious point that Obama might be preferable to someone like Bachmann. I assume that he faced some furious backlash and is now trying to demonstrate his conservative bonafides.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think Mr. Card was intending to contrast the Democrats in this regard with the Republicans. I'm sure he's aware that Republicans have tests of purity, in that same essay he uses the term RINO and indicates that only such a candidate could get elected for the Republicans, but probably wouldn't get the nomination.
You have to remember too that since he self identifies as a Democrat, he would only be exposed to people saying he's not really a Democrat because of beliefs X, Y, and Z. He wouldn't have somebody questioning his conservative credentials, or calling him a RINO since he's never called himself a conservative or a Republican.
I'm not sure I follow you. I was saying that I think it's ironic that he talks about Democrats being burned by the inquisition, when I think it's the Republican Party that's having the inquisition.
Right, and I'm saying that he isn't attempting to reform the Republican party, his beef is with the Democratic party for having ideological tests. He could have couched his criticism with "But the Republicans are far worse in this regard." But not opting to do so does not necessarily weaken his argument.
Being required to contrast everything wrong with a party by laying it against the other requires us to spend twice as much time writing things. It's why when I'm frustrated with Congress, I try to keep it apartisan. And when I criticize one party, I try not to worry about, "Oh but the other party is worse or also does X" because it dilutes the focus, IMHO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Right, and I'm saying that he isn't attempting to reform the Republican party, his beef is with the Democratic party for having ideological tests. He could have couched his criticism with "But the Republicans are far worse in this regard." But not opting to do so does not necessarily weaken his argument.
Being required to contrast everything wrong with a party by laying it against the other requires us to spend twice as much time writing things. It's why when I'm frustrated with Congress, I try to keep it apartisan. And when I criticize one party, I try not to worry about, "Oh but the other party is worse or also does X" because it dilutes the focus, IMHO.
But has the Democratic Party even had the sort of "inquisition" that he's talking about? That's what I'm getting at.
And I think he is at least implicitly saying, "The Republicans aren't as bad in this regard." The Democrats allegedly don't have anyone brave enough to do the right thing, because the inquisition has burned them all. The Republicans don't have this problem, in his opinion.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC's earlier statements were about the PC-inquisition. I think the dems are the more PC party. However, I don't see that conforming to PC protocols has much relevance to making hard budgetary choices. For example, Obama has angered the liberal wing by offering cuts to entitlements. The Republicans have barely deviated, if at all, from Grover Norquist's ideology.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Right, and I'm saying that he isn't attempting to reform the Republican party, his beef is with the Democratic party for having ideological tests. He could have couched his criticism with "But the Republicans are far worse in this regard." But not opting to do so does not necessarily weaken his argument.
Being required to contrast everything wrong with a party by laying it against the other requires us to spend twice as much time writing things. It's why when I'm frustrated with Congress, I try to keep it apartisan. And when I criticize one party, I try not to worry about, "Oh but the other party is worse or also does X" because it dilutes the focus, IMHO.
But has the Democratic Party even had the sort of "inquisition" that he's talking about? That's what I'm getting at.
And I think he is at least implicitly saying, "The Republicans aren't as bad in this regard." The Democrats allegedly don't have anyone brave enough to do the right thing, because the inquisition has burned them all. The Republicans don't have this problem, in his opinion.
Displays of faith are certainly more and more anathema in the Democratic party. Look at how outraged everyone was when Bush said he prayed about policy decisions.
I thought it was very telling when OSC indicated that he used to get letters from gay people telling him how much they appreciated his being sympathetic towards them in his writing. And now he is looked at with asbolute hatred by the gay community. It felt like he felt exiled by liberals.
Bear in mind I'm not trying to make the argument that the left is more exclusive than the right. But there are certainly points of view that make one persona non-grata there. What bothers OSC and myself to some extent is that the left claps itself on the back for the being the party of pluralism and multi-culturalism, and while there are live and let lives folks there, when they laugh to scorn certain ideas it smacks of hypocrisy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought it was very telling when OSC indicated that he used to get letters from gay people telling him how much they appreciated his being sympathetic towards them in his writing. And now he is looked at with asbolute hatred by the gay community.
Because it became well-publicized knowledge what he was saying about homosexuals and homosexuality.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought it was very telling when OSC indicated that he used to get letters from gay people telling him how much they appreciated his being sympathetic towards them in his writing. And now he is looked at with asbolute hatred by the gay community.
Because it became well-publicized knowledge what he was saying about homosexuals and homosexuality.
I'm not touching whether or not it was justified, I'm confining my remarks to how that statement gives a unique glimpse into the author's POV.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:How does subsidizing education result in "worse" education in your view? So far all I see is a broken system that encourages massive debts with nothing to force the price downwards. Concordia University and McGill in Quebec are both top 50 in the world in their respective categories (Business/Engineer and Medical) are we have it "subsidized".
Top 50 in the world in one area of study? The US has numerous universities that are top 50 in the world in dozens of areas of study. Quite a few US mid-rank universities have an area they're top 50 in the world in. The universities you hold out as examples of your success, judged in the way you hold them out as examples of success, would only put them in the middle rank of US institutions. (Not that they aren't good schools; they are). The US has dozens and dozens of solid middle rank universities and colleges, and the quality of education at those institutions routinely trounces the quality of education at middle rank schools in the rest of the world. Not that there aren't stand out institutions in lots of other countries, just that we have more of them, and that more importantly, we have lots of solid schools below the stand out institutions.
Not subsidizing education as much has lead to US universities being able to secure top faculty, with top facilities, top support staff, and so forth. Some universities in countries with subsidized education put together similar formulas, but their money is drawn from the same pool as that at other institutions, meaning that less prestigious colleges and universities frequently end up unable to afford top talent and such in any area.
quote:I'm also given to understand that we have sockets in our classrooms to plug stuff in and that there are plenty of "world" class universities in the states don't.
This is not a real argument. Given the relative quality of our top institutions, I am entirely comfortable with some schools not having bothered putting chargers in classrooms. Especially as, in many subject areas, the best teachers I've seen teach frequently ban the use of laptops.
But this is virtually indentical to republican healthcare arguments, because its not subsidized you say its "better" but to me its clearly overpriced for diminishing returns. Just how many of your "several" top fifty is because of simply population mass? you have over 350 million people to our 33 million.
IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see community colleges and state schools better funded, but if private want to charge an arm and a leg, that's their deal. In Arizona, it seemed like cutting from the university was a great place to make cuts. I remember one year the campaign was no more than 4, as in only cut their budget by 4%. There was no let's increase or even keep constant, just a hope that the cuts wouldn't be too deep.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
While I support some changes, I am unconvinced that a straight popular vote is the way to go.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
