 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 225/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Ziff, are you sure that 75% isn't "75% of the vote counted" because I've seen that the Ukraine Electoral Commission said that the result was "too close to call" after 75% of the vote was counted. The election itself is obviously very suspect but the actual official results were very close - Yanukovych 49.46%, Yushchenko: 46.61%. Also: I think the "East vs West" "Russia vs EU/US" angle is being overplayed by the media becuase that's a simple and easy way to present it to the world. Both candidates surely recognise that this equation no longer exists and both need to be dealt with. It seems much more a issue of simple ethnic divisions and different political views than any cold war style power play. Ziff's rather neatly illustrating the ethnic Ukrainian view, I'm sure the Russians have their own take on the situation that's just as angry and compelling. Also also: Yes, violence looks very likely. Things are getting very entrenched and polarised. strikes have begun and demonstrations continue. Pro-Yanukovich miners from the east are being bussed into Kiev, probably to start trouble, and new riot police from economically disadvantaged, rural, less "sophisticated" pro-Yanukovich areas have been placed at the very epicentre of the demonstrations from yesterday. They're much more likely to open fire if they feel threatened than Kiev native police are. The aim is probably to spark something and give the security forces a reason to crack down, calling it necessary to avoid civil war or a coup. Whether it actually goes into civil war or not is a different question altogether. Also also also: I'm almost certain Russia won't get involved even if it's claimed they are. Putin's got too much at stake for too little gain, and has made statements distancing himself from Yanukovich, no longer loudly supporting him. He's probably got Georgia on his mind... his involvement in the Ukrain could have huge consequences for the tense situation in Georgia, where the US has base and interests. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 227/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| This is difficult to answer. I was against the war from the outset, still think it was a dumb idea, but the best thing to do now is try to get the new government stable enough to win the civil war is fighting. Fuck "democracy" here, we should settle for "not harmful" at this stage, because simply having voting doesn't lead to democracy, stability or prosperity. Any idiot who believes that having elections is going to magically solve things doesn't deserve to have an opinion on the matter. THAT SAID about the present situation, lets draw back to the original invasion. The war was a bad idea and I feel right in opposing it, because its goals were dangerous fantasy... the equal of "domino theory" in the 1960s and 1970s. Noble as they may have been, they were never going to happen regardless of what ideological bleeding-heart warmonger fools like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz said ("freedom is messy?" Jesus Christ!) and greedy self-serving scumsuckers like Cheney might have claimed. And the humanitarian argument alone frankly wasn't enough to counter this - otherwise we'd invade Tibet or the Congo. You have to be able to demonstrate that you're trustworthy, and that you will be able to improve things and not just rearrange the fuckery, or set loose a whole new set of fuckery and hope for the best. Any idiot could point out how disastrous the long term implications of this War Of Choice would probably be - increased terrorism and antagonism, long term resource drain, a percieved puppet government lacking credibility, probably decades of involvement of various kinds. The precedents were nasty and heavy and they were NOT Japan and Germany in WW2, but rather things like Cuba 1898 and Haiti any number of times, as well as things like Iran and the Shah. Not a good track record. Finally, anyone could point out the simple flaws with EVERY SINGLE justification presented, save for the humanitarian one. Christ, remember when the dumb bastards tried to tell us this was a fight against TERRORISM? Remember "45 minutes"? Now we're scratching around in the soil for traces of bacteria and pesticides. And I'm someone who actually BELIEVED Hussein had WMDs, but that this didn't justify an aggressive invasion. On top of the lack of acceptable concrete justifications, the war was terribly argued for on all fronts, by leaders we have no reason to trust, or think capable of pulling it off even if their hearts were in the right place - they ALWAYS sounded hollow like they were trying to trick us or treat us like idiots, threw in plenty of emotional blackmail to fill the numerous gaps in their logical arguments. The humanitarian argument was an AFTERTHOUGHT, after nothing else stuck (stopping terrorism, they have large amounts of WMDs, they'll welcome us with open arms, etc)... and of course this "we can make things better" when it did come argument was made without any reference to history that shows they understand and acknowledge their own role in how things got that way. No "we're correcting our mistakes of twelve years ago, our war and sanctions made things worse and made Hussein stronger" style arguments because that would have required humility and sophistication far beyond what the leaders responsible for the war were capable of. So: It was a dodgy war, fought out of pure choice for ostensibly noble (but ultimately fantastical and naive, even dangerous) goals, presented in a variety of false ways that destroyed any hope of credibility. The one legitimate "we'll make things better and get rid of a bad man" argument was thrown in almost as an afterthought and terribly argued as well. But what's done is done, no matter how bloodyminded and foolish, and the best thing to do now is try to equip the new government to win its civil war... trying to keep it harmless if not "democratic". Oh, Legion, Radiohead told me all this so I guess you can just ignore it. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 228/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Saturday Night's usually better, depending on the programmer. Friday's mostly just new releases. Meh. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 229/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| HOW THE HELL IS HE NOT FIRED? | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 230/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Nontheist or Apatheist |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 231/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I've smoked pot a few times, I quite like it, and basically am in the "won't reject if it's on offer but won't seek it out" camp. Mostly I'm just a drunk. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 232/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Yeah, but Nick Cave isn't metal! | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 233/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I think I'm missing something in all this... What's the point of initiative and productivity if you're not enjoying life? What exactly are people supposed to be working towards in this life? Is there some plan I don't know about? What's the point of abstaining from drinking and whatever else floats your boat just because excessive use might mess you up? Or because "I don't need them to have fun"? If you're a well-balanced person and use drugs in moderation it's not going to mess you up or kill you or whatever... if you're already fucked up drugs will probably make you worse. At any rate, I find the puritanical abstinence mindset a little obnoxious and condescending. "Drug free and proud"? Meh. I enjoy a drink, I like the occasional joint, and fucked if people are gonna preach to me about how pure and righteous they are because they don't. It's obnoxious. No-one is better than someone else just because they abstain from some of the enjoyable things in life. (edited by Arwon on 12-15-04 10:21 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 234/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by Dracoon MLK's a bit simpler and more palatable for the masses to understand and accept. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 235/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Becuase there's no reason to support him? Seriously, I almost never see anyone defend the guy based on anything other than their support for the Republican Party as a whole, or some other value or stance they attribute to Bush. They defend "Republican Candidate X" or "being against abortion" or "I want security" rather than Bush himself as a who, his track record, etc. Bush actually has the same "Multiple Bad Things" syndrome in his favour, same as Nixon had. The reasons people dislike him are so varied and numerous, there's so much people dislike, that when confronted directly with this question, they usually turn into a spluttering mess unable to convince anyone or speak particularly rationally. (edited by Arwon on 01-01-05 05:47 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 236/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| It should probably also be pointed out that if Rumsfeld went, the track record of the Bush admin shows that he'd be replaced by someone else. Probably Wolfowitz. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 237/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahhOriginally posted by Ziffski I think that's more to do with the way funding is distributed in the US. My understanding is that it is ludicrously uneven and local - school districts collect from their according to their district's income and its demographics, and so the quality of the school depends too much on the economic status of the local area, and its size. The essential argument for public schooling is that it is not really an economics issue but a social one. Like health or environmental protection, there's lots and lots of non-money social issues at play. Externalities. Education is something that needs to be universally and equally available, its a social resource everyone should contribute to, because the outcomes of schooling - the sort of people schools end up producing and sending off into society - affect everyone. It's investment in the future, in long term economic viability, in social cohesion, fuck, call it a form of crime prevention and insurance. Markets produce uneven and capricious outcomes, and this isn't a desirable situation in situations where universality and equality of opportunity are basically the most important issues. Sure, by all means, have private schools, but those are luxuries people choose to work for, and shouldn't be government supported. Far better to focus on and ensure that the public system is quality, rather than create a sort of private/public multi-tiered limbo, where the "private school" system is partially government funded and socialised anyway, but not everyone can afford to access it. .... In rural areas such as mine there's the added issue that there's simply not enough of a market, you wouldn't get much competition because there's only a couple of schools in the region, and in smaller towns it'd basically just be the one public school and maybe a Catholic one as well (and they're quasi-public here anyway). As with most services, privatisation and reliance on markets would tend to disproportionately screw over regional and rural populations. (edited by Arwon on 01-01-05 06:12 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 238/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| It's not that some people wouldn't be able to afford to go to school, that paragraph was a rant directed at the current partially-subsidised, paratistic nature of the private school system in this country - if they're private, why do they get government money at the expense of public schools? Also: Did I say that everyone needs to go to school for 12 years? I did not. That doesn't happen here, there's a school leaving option in Year 10, so the thought never really entered my head. I know that the 4 years of American high school are largely useless, but this speaks of an education system dysfunction far deeper than anything the magic of a voucher system could fix. I'm not talking about just the last couple of years of High School, I'm talking about the absolute necessity of a good, thorough, universal and egalitarian education system through the first eight or ten years of school. I just don't see the point of radically changing the nature of the education system for no good reason when the current set up works fine and could be made to work better. And yes, I have concerns about introducing a "market" into schooling, because markets, as I said, produce uneven outcomes and this isn't desirable with education. Voucher system proponents seem to argue that in some hazy way that resources would be funneled towards "good" schools. Maybe. But what about the kids at the "bad" schools, whose funding gets sucked away as other people leave and their vouchers go elsewhere, but they for whatever reason (distance, parental distaste for the "good" school, kid likes his damn friends, simple lag between "school gets shitty" and "everyone leaves and it closes") don't move? What stops these "bad" schools, or the ones that have an unjustly "bad" reputation, from getting utterly gutted and kids getting screwed by this? Some schools and people would benefit, but others wouldn't. I'd rather everyone get an adequate education (it doesn't seem to have hurt me, and many others...) than some get a good one and others get a bad one. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 239/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| No no, I mean that Bush dislikers when confronted about why, tend to turn into spluttering inarticulate messes because there's so many things to say. Not that supporters, when confronted, get spluttery - on the contrary there's a variety of glib or circular responses at the ready. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 240/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well, I view the subsidisation of private school as creating a multi-tiered public system - if the private schools are partially government funded, then they should be considered, more or less, as public schools also. It's the same objection I have to government involvement in our private health system Yet, not everyone can go there, not everyone can afford or gain entry, it's an optional luxury the government shouldn't be funding (if the private sector is so damn efficient shouldn't it stand on its own?), especially when there's such concern about the funding level for the PUBLIC system. Why the hell should private schools that have thousands of dollar entry fees anyway, get government funding, as presently happens? Zara: Yes they do produce uneven outcomes, people being inherently different and in different situations and all that, but with the public system they're at least all starting from basically the same place. I'm not saying its possible or desirable to ensure every graduate is a flurking genius and a modern renaissance individual, but I am concerned that every school provdes decent chances for the kids that go there to do this if they are so inclined. Let's not overstate the problems here. It's entirely possible to succeed in public school if you're capable of it and motivated, it's entirely possible to get by and get through if you're not so good, the system works okay despite constant media hysteria to the contrary. I can't see how making education into a marketplace is going to accomplish that any better - the most anyone seems to be saying is that it wouldn't make things worse. I dunno, maybe the Aussie school system is a lot less fucked up than the American. This is entirely possible based on my experiences in California and New South Wales. But, even then, I'm not sure that free market magic is going to fix US education. This voucher system seems to be largely an American idea at least in my experience... but it seems to me that obsession with it as the US education system's saviour, such faith in its virtues, seems misplaced... since at most it seems like it'd just be redistributing the same inequalities and same problems in new ways and along new lines - you'd still have good schools and bad schools. So why such fervor for a system that'd just rearrange things? Anyways, like I said, I think it's far better to have everyone get an adequate education, than for some to get a stellar one and others to get a poor one, and as far as my experience and education has shown, the general trend is that markets are uneven, there are big winners but big losers too, that's the nature of market forces. I can see a voucher system turning schools at least partly into slick public relations firms, trying to attract the most students (and kicking out undesirables and difficult students because that jeaopardises its chances to attract more people and thus more government vouchers). Yeah, some schools would end up very good and well funded, while others would end up very bad and poorly funded, even moreso than now. We're not talking about supermarket chains or phone companies here... the consequences of schools "going under" due to market forces shouldn't be dismissed quite so lightly. Now, the funny thing about school is that even if it isn't perfect, most people tend to muddle through and survive and come out as functional adults. I don't really like the idea of messing radically with a system that seems to work okay and has done for sometime. As I said earlier, I infinitely prefer for everyone to get an adequate education and muddle through, than some to get a stellar education and others to get a very poor one. --------- Also, I think we're all talking about different "voucher" systems here. The way I hear it explained, is that every child has a voucher from teh gubermint, and whatever school they go to, that school gets the funding for that voucher. The argument runs that it's a way of making school funding responsive to market forces. So if a bunch of people desert a school, that must mean the market is showing that the school isn't very good (so says the theory), thus that school will get less funding, while funding will be redirected to more desirable schools with higher numbers. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 241/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I'm confused here. You seem to be talking as though school vouchers is a means of privaatising the school system... whereas from where I'm sitting it's more like the government getitng involved in the private system as voucher money is directed there. How can it be privatised if the government would now be giving money to all schools? Would they seriously just give up funding to any school at all while expecting no control over where its money is going? France, for example, has a "School choice" system which basically sees heavy subsidisation and government influence over the cirriculum of private schools. Here, too, private schools also are somewhat inside the public system and its cirriculum, since they're partially subsidised by the state and federal govt. (Actually, the federal government spends more money on private than public schools). So are we talking about a market system with no government involvement, or are we talking about spreading the welfare and paternalism around more widely? ... Also, you speak of "local control" but to me that's a significant problem in the US as it is. Schools' standards vary wildly at least partly BECAUSE there's such local control - schools in affluent areas are better funded, because they generate a lot of funds through local property taxes that go directly to the school's budgets. That's how it works in California, at least, I'm not sure how the rest of the country works. Then there's this "School Board" thing. Who thought it was a good idea to let the crankiest and most ideoligical citizens, with the biggest axes to grind, practically run schooling systems with little oversight? To let them install bigass wireless networks and huge stadiums and fancy shiny buildings in schools that have to share textbooks? To let them shriek and piss and moan about evolution and sex-education rather than, you know, administer and manage the schools in their area? To me the two biggest things the US could do to fix its system is regulate and fund the system at a state instead of local level, to reduce the influence of loopy agenda-driven cranks, and reduce the vast inequities that come from letting schools directly reap their local property taxes. It's really kinda difficult to aruge this really well, because Australia's public education system is quite different to the US's, and I'm coming into this with a different set of assumptions and experiences. My prescriptions for the US system are basically rooted in what seems to work here, you lot probably think we're all desperately socialist and stuff, whereas from where I'm sitting your health and education systems look like expensive anarchy. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 242/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Becuase parents are reluctant to move kids from school to school because of disruption to social life, separating from friends, different cirriculums, and so forth? Apparently people who aren't used to moving schools every 2 or so years (I am a military brat) find the idea of moving schools as scary as moving house. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 243/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I was under the impression that if you actually invoke Godwin's it doesn't count. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 244/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Strangely enough, my viewpoint is summed up by the Marquis de Sade: "to kill a man in a paroxysm of passion is understandable, but to have him killed by someone else after calm and serious meditation and on the pretext of duty honourably discharged is incomprehensible" State sanctioned death is icky, icky territory to me. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 245/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahh What, you dont think taxpayers should hold the people they help maintain accountable for their actions? (: Um, the prince is obviously an idiot, but the controversy is a bit overblown. Brits and their royals. I can't wait until Chuckles the Third becomes King so the republican movement regains momentum in this country. (edited by Arwon on 01-13-05 10:10 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
