Was Plato right that "Only the dead have seen the end of war"?64 responses total.
Wars are romanticized, subjects of an endless, cross-temporal, transcultural spool of poems, songs, plays, paintings, novels, films. The battlefield is mythologized as the furnace in which character and nobility are forged; and, oh, what a thrill it can be. "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction," writes Chris Hedges, a reporter for The New York Times who has covered wars, in "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning." Even with its destruction and carnage, he adds, war "can give us what we long for in life." "It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living," he con- tinues.
There will be war. There will always be war. Because just as soon as most of us decide to be peaceful, some jackass will see it as his opportunity to feed his inner disease. At that point, someone is gonna have to stand up and kick him back to the ground, or humanity is going to have to bend its knee to the madman. Better to die free than to live as a slave.
thank you for being willing to die for my freedom back when you were a hero in the war, bruse.
The people most eager to talk about the virtues of war generally seem to be people who have never experienced it first-hand.
This response has been erased.
The rushing is people rushing out. Dead people, medevacs, you know.
adrenalin rush ....
hi, how do i create a new item (new topic)?
The command is "enter", r6048.
This response has been erased.
I imagine that's true, Todd, but no one writes about their experiences while they're happening. They write about them later. Once you've gotten through a dangerous situation, and are looking back on it, it feels more adventurous. War is a result of the combative, aggressive, competitive human spirit. While there are people, there will always be war.
One hopes you'll live long enough to be proved wrong. ;)
This response has been erased.
Nope. When the going gets tough the tough hunker down and play the endgame.
I think pulling out before there's a real, established government able to provide law and order would be a huge mistake. I'm actually a little worried that Bush will succumb to election year pressure to rush things. If we pull out too early it will become a radical Islamist state and things will be worse than when we started. That's not to say we shouldn't ask for help. Putting more of an international face on things might help reduce some of the gut-level hate reaction people have towards the U.S. running their country. We also need to start phasing in some Iraqi involvement, too, of course. As one columnist put it, "in the history of the world no one has ever washed a rented car." Right now the Iraqis are "renting" their country from us; they don't feel any sense of ownership or responsibility.
What gull said.
This response has been erased.
Revelatory. ;-)
I don't know if there can be an end to war, but this one sure seemed far from inevitable. There's was a completely senseless leap taken from "September 11" to "War on Terrorism". The whole idea of a "war on terrorism" makes no sense. Wars are things that happen between states. Terrorism can be backed by a state, but functions perfectly well without a state. If you succeed in a war, then you tromp a state flat. But terrorists don't need states, so you can't defeat terrorism via war. The only more senseless thing you could do is to declare "War on Militarism". Terrorism is a crime, in the casse of September 11, an organized, international crime. There are ways to deal with crime. War isn't one of them. Then there was a second completely senseless leap from "War on Terrorism" to "War on Iraq". I guess there are two senses in which War might be inevitable. First might be because situations must necessarily arise in relationships between nations which require war. I'm far from convinced that that is true. Second might be because there are some udder-fudging idiots who actually like having wars, and will do their blondy best to start one on the thinnest pretext.
I agree totally.
'specially with the 'udder-fudging' and 'blondy' parts. ;)
These are only sequels to War on Poverty and War on Drugs.
I guess that the government thinks that if we can have a "war on poverty" and a "war on drugs," we can have a war on anything. Stupid.
War on Anything, eh? What a concept.
Re #19: That's easy to do, because huge parts of the American populace (both left and right) DO NOT THINK. Instead they react to trigger words and phrases. Proper use of those triggers can get them behind a policy even if the policy makes no sense. (The Bush tax cuts made no sense, for example.) Failing to use the trigger words (e.g. asking for critical thinking on any of the questionable points) get you ignored. I just wish I didn't have to get the government they deserve.
Beware of 20th century thinking in the 21st century.
Re 25 and 26: Amen to that.
anything that reduces any tax is a good thing. You would love my tax cuts. 10% reduction in force in all departments except, Military, law enforcement, schools, and Nasa.
Who is "you", exactly? What actual purpose does Nasa serve, in your opinion?
Taxes serve to support functions that can be more economically done by a government group than can be done by individuals. These include many more functions than bru named. Whether these functions need more or less funding at this time is not usefully discussed by declarations of "10% reduction in force in all departments except...".
(Does anyone besides me think than the first and second paragraphs of #28 contradict each other?)
Re: 31 - sorry, but no. The argument is simply over where the line can be drawn between cutting tax to fund x and not cutting tax to fund y. OTOH, I'm not sure I agree with bru's methods, either.
Re #29: I think his budget allocation can be summed up as, "schools, and departments that make or use things that go boom." ;>
Is it not the case that privately financed schools are oftentimes provided much more economically than is done by the government, Mr. rcurl??
"anything that reduces any tax is a good thing" shut up, dummy.
we made things go "boom" in school...
"Where's the Ka-boom? There is supposed to be an earth shattering Ka-boom!
Marvin the Martian
"There is Always a Ka-boom."
Lt. Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
I LIKE KA-boom!
re #13 .. tod ... that didn't ruin the item , it gave it content and perspective. taht the fscking gummint is eviscerating the va is the worst crime imaginanable, imnsho. however ... the evisceration did not start in a republican congress. that it contunues in one is a feature of the crass political tradeoff to get elected/reelected by abdicating teh obligations of office.
Re #34: I don't know what your assertion means. Please provide some data.
Re #34: Private schools can refuse to serve anyone who would cost too much. Public schools have no such option (though perhaps they should; IMHO the blank check written to Special Ed is pure insanity).
Surely, Mr. rcurl, you have had experience with inner city students who attended parochial schools (where teachers salaries are very low) vs. those who attended public schools (where salaries - and administrative costs - are very high). Which students are more prepared for university studies?
Parochial schools don't keep the "difficult" students - public schools must.
This response has been erased.
re #41: While Russ's earlier comment that "Private schools can refuse to serve anyone who would cost too much," is true, "can" is an important qualifying word in my experience. Rane's unqualified claim that "Parochial schools don't keep the 'difficult' students - public schools must," flatly contradicts my experience with the public and parochial schools in where I grew up in west Michigan. I knew several kids who wound up at the Catholic high school I attended not because their parents wanted to send them for religious education (in the cases I'm thinking of their families weren't even Catholic) but because they'd been strongly encouraged to send their kids elsewhere by the administrators of the public school district I lived in.
yeah...and how old are you?
(Please notice how Mr. rcurl avoids responding to a direct question.)
That's your usual trick, klg - but what is this direction question you say I avoid?
one, just one single disruptive student in a class of 20-30 destroys teh educational progress of teh rest. taht disrupter has to go elsewhere. public school would be an intersting place .. but even there teh disrupter eeds to be separated from teh achievers. forcing 20-30 achievers to submit to disruption is a failure of school ADMINSTRATIN leadership.
43: This is happening now in England. People send their kids to school even if they aren't C of E (Anglican), or even religious, because the C of E Voluntary Aided schools get a lot of money, and have more freedom to spend money where they want to spend it, instead of where central government mandates they must.
Mr. rcurl: (Here, again, is the direct question. Please be sure you are wearing your eyeglasses this time.) #40 of 48 by klg (klg) on Tue Nov 18 12:53:59 2003: Surely, Mr. rcurl, you have had experience with inner city students who attended parochial schools (where teachers salaries are very low) vs. those who attended public schools (where salaries - and administrative costs - are very high). Which students are more prepared for university studies? re: "#47 (tsty): one, just one single disruptive student in a class of 20-30 destroys teh educational progress of teh rest. taht disrupter has to go elsewhere. . . forcing 20-30 achievers to submit to disruption is a failure of school ADMINSTRATIN leadership." Precisely, Mr. tsty!! Although the failure may have more to do with government in general than with the school administration in particular. The public schools may be reacting, in part, to the intrusion from other branches of the government.
The graduates of the parochial schools are probably, on the average, better prepared for university studies, because parochial schools can select their students and exclude those that are disruptive or have serious learning difficulties. In response to mcnally in #43, a person with much greater experience with the issue than mcnally has this to say: "In the mayor's experiment, parents who opt to use the parochiaid vouchers will tend to be those who are more supportive of their child's education, and those students in the experiment who don't shape up will be shipped back to public school. Thus, the group in the parochial schools is skewed in favor of motivated and well-behaved students, while the comparison group in the public schools, constrained by the legal requirements of compulsory education and constitutional safeguards, gets increasingly loaded in the opposite direction. The "choice" in the proposed experiment is self-fulfilling selectivity, and the results are pre-ordained." (This is from a discussion of a voucher program proposed by then Mayor Giuliani of New York City: http://luna.cc.lehigh.edu/MEDIA%3AFRAME%3A2790)
Precisely! And you continue to ignore the fact that much - if not most - of the corrupting influence upon public schools is the fault of government itself. Which demonstrates my position on whatever it was that we were debating in the first place.
re #50: I'm sure whoever wrote that probably does have a great deal more insight into the issue than I do, however the quote you selected neither contradicts what I wrote in #43 nor supports your unsupported claim in #41 that "Parochial schools don't keep the 'difficult' students, public schools must." It's possible, even likely, that parochial schools don't wind up with as many "problem students" to start with, either because of self-selection or economic issues, but what you write in #41 implies that parochial schools prosper by forcing their rejects back into the public school systems. I suspect your conclusion is more influenced by your well-known antipathy towards religious belief than by any evidence you've seen that shows that parochial schools make a practice of this policy.
"in the mayor's experiment, those who opt.... _will_tend_to_be_ This is not data, this is a prediction about one possible outcome of an experiment.
Seeing as charter schools, which aren't subject to most of the government regulations that public schools are, don't seem to produce students who perform any better than public schools, I'm skeptical about the claim that government regulation is the main problem here.
Te #53: that was an "authority" speaking, and "will tend to be" would reflect statistical information to that effect. But you can take it or leave it, as you wish (or your prejucides dictate). I agree with gull that government regulation is not the problem. The problem is universal public education colliding with significant parent indifference.
yep, that and that most educational monies end up boeing *administrative* in nature. /yawns and goes back to reading Gatto
'tending' towards success -vs- 'tending' towards failure i choose success, emphirical, annecdotal ro whatever and you can 'tend' to yuor problem yoruself /
/sends you to rehab
Are parochial schools able to educate the "non-problem" students at a much lower per-student cost than the public schools (educating those same exact same students)? My impression is that they can...so why not save a fortune by sending "all" of the non-problem students to parochial-type schools instead? Are there more groups of students who can get an as-good-or-better education elsewhere, at an as-much-or-less cost (compared to public schools)? If so, ship them out, too. In the end, would there be anything left of the public school except a bunch of self-serving scum administrators & union officials? But if let go, they'd go turn some other good thing into a mega-money- wasting hell. Somewhere in America, there's work so filthy, degrading, and underpaid that even desperate illegals don't want it. Ship the scum off, in chains, to do that work. :)
you know, now that i think of it, the idea of a nun
spanking my bare bottom with a ruler for being a
bad boy kind of gives me a chub.
i wish i had gone to catholick school instead.
*sigh*
re #53 ... mymymy, such selective critcismn.... #167.50 Rane Curl (rcurl) Wed, Nov 19, 2003 (13:14): The graduates of the parochial schools are probably, on the average, "probably .. on avearage" .... "This is not data, this is a prediction about one possible outcome of an experiment" i support the experiment - i am a victim of the experiment!
you were molested by nuns?
(well, i did have some dreams ya know .... <g>.)
i dreamd about whore.////./.s, last night
You have several choices: