Previous 11 - 20 Next
I think this report misrepresents the Times article. I have not checked back, but I think the NYT said that there was organized terrorism, but no evidence it was by AQ, and some evidence that the organized terrorists were not very well organized. I think it also talked about the film as a triggering event or a catalyst, not as a cause. The article is, in fact, consistent with Hicks's testimony: the article says the US knew nothing of the uproar caused by the film. Please get facts straight.
Note that Prof Cochrane's plan requires governmental regulation, to define the individual portable health plan. Does it also require government to define what the plan covers, at least in broad outlines? If the government does not define, isn't the obvious scandal in Cochrane's plan that insurance companies could, in complex legalese, write extensive exemptions (no cancer coverage, e.g.) into policies? (Do you trust large corporations to write contracts fair to consumers?)
I believe that the Nobel committee that awards the Peace Prize is a different one from the other prizes -- and that the Econ Prize may also be a separate committee. So, disrespect them all if you wish, but don't tar them with decisions they did not make.
Your next stop should be to the Wyoming statehouse, that hot-bed of misled liberals, where fracking regulations are among the most far-reaching.
Russell51 misses, I think, an important dynamic. Instead of thinking in his terms -- free market vs welfare state -- ask whether Hispanics want the opportunities to get ahead: that means good schools, colleges that are affordable, family-friendly policies like Obamacare that help you if you get sick, day-long kindergarten, etc. Think that there is a third possibility: a gov't (state, local, and federal) that supports and aids people's aspirations. (At present, this is not Dems or Reps -- they are both back in the free market vs. welfare state, so 20th century.)
To me, this issue is a real dilemma. You (or at least I -- some of the respondents seem happy with discrimination) don't want people to be discriminated against because they are white or not, straight or not, etc. You also want people not to be forced to do something they find against their deepest beliefs. I think that, whichever way the decision goes, someone's rights are going to be infringed.
and if the Republicans controlled health care, she'd never be able to sign up (except on a company plan) because of 'pre-existing conditions'
In a country as diverse as the US, I think Hawkins's argument is just wrong -- unless you favor the total breakdown of the federal gov't and a continuous business, economic, and personal crisis for people. In the US, it is difficult to obtain a majority of both houses, the Presidency, and the Supremes (plus the co-operation of the states); almost always, *everyone* -- not just Republicans -- must compromise. (If Obamacare could have passed with 51 votes, it would look much different from how it does now -- but the Dems had to compromise with those extra 9 senators.) For a Republican in the legislature to be ideologically pure at this point means more sequestration, more chaos, a weaker economy, and disspirited citizens
For those of you worried about our science and math education, one goal of CC is to standardize the order in which math and science is taught, so that I student who moves to another city or state will have had the same maths and sciences as his classmates. (I guess this can be perceived as communism or big gov't interference, but in a mobile country it has some degree of sense, I think.)
Perhaps the kids learned these responses from all the high-pressure testing they are already subjected to from the 'no child left behind' 'reform' that is still in place :-)
This series strikes me as pretty worthless -- lots of suggestions and innuendo, few facts. For instance, Norris quotes Fox News, hardly unbiased on Obama, as saying "Teaching materials aligned with the controversial national educational standards ..." But what does 'aligned with' mean -- very unclear (perhaps Norris should study fifth-grade editing of sentences): does 'aligned with' mean written by the Feds? probably not, because then Norris would say that. So, what does it mean?
Previous 11 - 20 Next