The Tea Party Position on Cohabitation
Quote: reno...and in the last year 104 of them have been arrested under the statute
I'm sure the Tea Party would like to get the rest of them, but can you give me any source behind the 104? I'm not saying this isn't true, but it is so incredible that I could use something to satisfy my skepticism.
Quote: WizardI'm sure the Tea Party would like to get the rest of them, but can you give me any source behind the 104? I'm not saying this isn't true, but it is so incredible that I could use something to satisfy my skepticism.
Okay, so the Tea Party is the problem? The Tea Party has come out with a position on this issue? This Tea Party thing drives me nuts. People talk about how crazy they are (yes, there are some crazy folks involved; the majority are not so) and let the even further nutso ideas of the far Left go unexamined (crazy folks there, too).
This is a statement about this legislator: "Ritch has become known to his peers and constituents alike to be a man on a mission to reduce the size and scope of Florida's Government."
This is the list of some of the things that could possibly be a Tea Party platform...if it were that organized:
Identify constitutionality of every new law
Reject emissions trading
Demand a balanced federal budget
Simplify the tax system
Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
>>>>>Limit annual growth in federal spending
Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
Reduce Earmarks
Reduce Taxes
So...Mr. Workman's reason for wanting this law repealed is likely that it is stupid and any enforcement of it is basically a waste of time, not that he necessarily favors cohabitation without marriage. Getting rid of laws that don't work helps to reduce the size and scope of government.
I wish folks would be open-minded enough to look at the Tea Party as a group of people who want changes that make sense and not judging them on the positions of the furthest out members.
That standard is not applied to the other side in a consistent manner--those thugs in Philadelphia did intimidate voters with the uniforms and weapons, yet all of us allowed our government to ignore the issue instead of pursue it.
stupid libruls always wanting verifiable fact checking!Quote: WizardI'm sure the Tea Party would like to get the rest of them, but can you give me any source behind the 104? I'm not saying this isn't true, but it is so incredible that I could use something to satisfy my skepticism.
The Tea Party is a constuct of The FreedomWorks, a PAC. It's dangerous to the extent that if you are a Republican politician, the will Primary you if you don't kowtow to them. The are some other groups that have tried and failed to wrest the mantle of Tea Party from FreedomWorks PAC. The infighting is fun to watch.Quote: EvenBobWho is the Tea Party, exactly? Where are they located, who is
their leader? I heard the other day the Tea Party is an idea,
a concept. And therefore is very dangerous indeed..
Quote: s2dbakerThe Tea Party is a constuct of The FreedomWorks, a PAC. It's dangerous to the extent that if you are a Republican politician, the will Primary you if you don't kowtow to them. The are some other groups that have tried and failed to wrest the mantle of Tea Party from FreedomWorks PAC. The infighting is fun to watch.
So Soros funds the liberal Democrats and someone else funds the conservative Republicans. Why is one a big story and one not so much?
What is wrong with contesting a primary if you feel like an incumbent is not doing the job? If a person says that he is a Republican but does not represent the interests of a majority of Republicans in a given area, they should be challenged. The same would go for a Democrat in the same situation. No one should get a free pass to act how they want after being elected...they should answer to the electorate in the next election. Electing incumbents on both sides without recourse for poor service is what has helped us reach this point...
President Obama wants to raise a billion dollars for this election. Isn't some of that coming from donors finding ways to donate more than the minimum amounts through PACs, etc.?
Quote: Wizard...can you give me any source behind the 104? I'm not saying this isn't true, but it is so incredible that I could use something to satisfy my skepticism.
The August 31 issue of the Tampa Tribune says: "Over the past 12 months, however, only 104 people in Florida have been arrested under the state statute that lists cohabitation among forms of 'lewd and lascivious behavior.'"
As it turns out, the 104 statistic is a lowball estimate, the real number is actually higher. The Tampa Tribune: "With about 25 percent of state arrest records not citing the statute, the arrest figures for adultery and cohabitation may actually be a bit higher, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement says."
I'm just wondering how these 104 sinners got busted.
Quote: StoryOnly two people have been arrested over the last 12 months under the adultery statute, state crime statistics show. With about 25 percent of state arrest records not citing the statute, the arrest figures for adultery and cohabitation may actually be a bit higher, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement says.
Section 798.001 and .002 adress the law.
The law in question is:
Quote: florida state law798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior: If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
I guess the 102 in question were lewdly and lascivisouly cohabitating together rather than doing so quietly. Maybe they were married and doing some groping. Who knows... the law was in place apparently for divorce reason.
Quote: Same storyEven in a no-fault divorce state, the cohabitation statute could still figure into an alimony case, said Cynthia DeBose, a family law professor at Stetson University College of Law.
In Florida, someone paying alimony must prove significant change in circumstance to overturn an alimony award -- and the payee's cohabitation with a partner could qualify as such a change, DeBose said. The payee's arrest under the existing statute "could definitely create a situation that would assist the payer of the spousal support."
Quote: s2dbakerThe Tea Party is a constuct of The FreedomWorks, a PAC. It's dangerous to the extent that if you are a Republican politician, the will Primary you if you don't kowtow to them. The are some other groups that have tried and failed to wrest the mantle of Tea Party from FreedomWorks PAC. The infighting is fun to watch.
Uh, and the pro-abortion lobby doesn't demand members of the Democrat Party support all abortion, even partial birth abortion, on demand and even taxpayer funded? That is just one example.
The Tea Party is doing a service to the USA in making us remember that we have the Constitution and are supposed to actually follow it. I do realize Obama and his supporters seem to see the Constitution and Seperation of Powers as inconvienient, perhaps that is why they dislike the movement?
Quote: s2dbakerIt's dangerous to the extent that if you are a Republican politician, they will Primary you if you don't kowtow to them..
Who is 'they'? Name names. Who are they, where are they located. Who is the leader. Even Rush Limbaugh doesn't know. He says the Tea Party doesn't exist, its a concept, an idea. A way of thinking.
Quote: AZDuffmanUh, and the pro-abortion lobby doesn't demand members of the Democrat Party support all abortion, even partial birth abortion, on demand and even taxpayer funded? That is just one example.
Just wanted to distinguish between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice." I think cigarettes are horrible but I want the government to keep cigarettes legal. Does that make me pro-tobacco?
Quote: WizardI'm sure the Tea Party would like to get the rest of them, but can you give me any source behind the 104? I'm not saying this isn't true, but it is so incredible that I could use something to satisfy my skepticism.
Quote: Florida Statutes 798
Florida Statutes 798.01 - Living in open adultery
Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.
Florida Statutes 798.02 - Lewd and lascivious behavior
If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
My guess is that t he majority of people who were arrested out of the 104 cases were arrested on the second change. It is written vaguely enough that it could cover a much more common charge. Couples have sex or parade around naked on private property in front of an open window or where the general public can see you.
In a state of 18.8 million I would be surprised if the police didn't have at least 104 such cases.
Quote: renoJust wanted to distinguish between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice." I think cigarettes are horrible but I want the government to keep cigarettes legal. Does that make me pro-tobacco?
53,310,843 total abortions since 1973. Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2008, with estimates of 1,212,400 for 2009-2010. GI estimates a possible 3% under reporting rate, which is factored into the total.
Tobacco may have killed 16 million people in the same time period, but the total cost to society may be higher.
Even if you are pro-choice, you have to acknowledge that abortion is different than cigarette smoking.
Quote: pacomartinEven if you are pro-choice, you have to acknowledge that abortion is different than cigarette smoking.
Obviously. My point was that opposing prohibition of an activity is different than encouraging an activity. Just because I want smoking legal doesn't mean that I want people smoking.
Quote: renoJust wanted to distinguish between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice." I think cigarettes are horrible but I want the government to keep cigarettes legal. Does that make me pro-tobacco?
If you wanted government to fund cigarette purchases it would. If you made out that smoking was a good thing you would. The sad fact is "pro choice" really means "pro abortion" as the pro abortion people want as many abortions publicly funded as possible and sneer at a woman like Sarah Palin for keeping a child known to be special needs before birth.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you wanted government to fund cigarette purchases it would.
This abortion tangent is getting us off topic, so perhaps we should start a new thread?
Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
Most states have followed the federal government's lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).2 Thirty-two of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law.3 (A handful of these states pay as well in cases of fetal impairment or when the pregnancy threatens "severe" health problems, but none provides reimbursement for all medically necessary abortions for low-income women.) Finally, one state (SD) fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only for lifesaving abortions.
Additional provisions adopted by Congress may further burden access to abortion services for Medicaid recipients, even those in states with nondiscriminatory funding. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, for example, permits health maintenance organizations (HMOs) serving Medicaid recipients to refuse to cover counseling or referral for services, such as abortion, to which the HMO objects on moral or religious grounds. As a result, even in states with nondiscriminatory funding, women seeking abortions may face obstacles in even finding a provider.
Quote: AZDuffmansneer at a woman like Sarah Palin for keeping a child known to be special needs before birth.
No. I sneer at her for exploting her child by carrying him around like a sack of potatoes at political events to further her own ambitions.
Quote: matildaNo. I sneer at her for exploting her child by carrying him around like a sack of potatoes at political events to further her own ambitions.
So you have a problem with a politician taking their family to political events? Did you get upset when Chelsea Clinton was around Bill? I fail to see the problem, happens all the time.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo you have a problem with a politician taking their family to political events? Did you get upset when Chelsea Clinton was around Bill? I fail to see the problem, happens all the time.
No, I didn't expect you to see the problem and I am correct.
Quote: matildaNo, I didn't expect you to see the problem and I am correct.
Again, what problem? And she isn't running for anything right now and has not since 2008.
Maybe you are just not the kind of person who can handle a srtong woman?
Quote: AZDuffmanI fail to see the problem, happens all the time.
I agree.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe Tea Party is doing a service to the USA...
Maybe, but they're not doing a service to our teeth. Some Tea Party activists in Florida successfully got fluoride removed from their county's drinking water. My advice to mainstream Republicans: distance yourselves from these anti-dentist lunatics...
Quote: renoMaybe, but they're not doing a service to our teeth. Some Tea Party activists in Florida successfully got removed from their county's drinking water. My advice to mainstream Republicans: distance yourselves from these anti-dentist lunatics...
They're rabid anti-dentites!!!
Quote: renoMaybe, but they're not doing a service to our teeth. Some Tea Party activists in Florida successfully got fluoride removed from their county's drinking water. My advice to mainstream Republicans: distance yourselves from these anti-dentist lunatics...
With modern toothpaste there is probably little need to put flouride in the water anymore. Or maybe there is. But what I know is lefty activists were doing far worse damage long before the Tea Party came along.
Mainstream Republicans should quit pretending they are Democrats and instead send the Tea Party thank-you cards for giving the party the most energy it has had since the 1980s.
BTW: are you offering the Democrat Party the advice of distancing themselves from the Occupy Wall Street riots, or does that group "represent America?"
Quote: renoMaybe, but they're not doing a service to our teeth. Some Tea Party activists in Florida successfully got fluoride removed from their county's drinking water. My advice to mainstream Republicans: distance yourselves from these anti-dentist lunatics...
It sounds to me like they're more anti-dental-health than anti-dentist. Removing fluoride is going to increase incidence of cavities and will therefore increase incomes for dental practitioners.
It's another example of libertarian-at-all-costs sentiment, putting personal liberty (no taxes for water fluoridation) above social good (better overall dental health). There is no question whatsoever that the financial cost of fluoridation is far less than the aggregate cost of treating the dental problems it prevents. That's why it's good public policy. But if you elevate individual liberty above good public policy, you do away with things like fluoride water treatment or vaccines for children. It's remarkably shortsighted, in my opinion, but it does indeed maximize individual liberty.
Quote: MathExtremistIt sounds to me like they're more anti-dental-health than anti-dentist. Removing fluoride is going to increase incidence of cavities and will therefore increase incomes for dental practitioners.
That's an easy criticism to make, but not as easy to support.
To begin with fluorine compounds occur naturally in water, along with many other compounds. In some places, the natural levels of fluorine compounds useful for a measure of dental health are high enough that adding more to the water achieves no purpose, and increases the chances of fluorine-related bone disorders.
So, before automatically assuming an attitude that "we-know-better-than-these-troglodytes," tell me what the natural levels of fluorine are in the area in question.
Quote: NareedThat's an easy criticism to make, but not as easy to support.
To begin with fluorine compounds occur naturally in water, along with many other compounds. In some places, the natural levels of fluorine compounds useful for a measure of dental health are high enough that adding more to the water achieves no purpose, and increases the chances of fluorine-related bone disorders.
So, before automatically assuming an attitude that "we-know-better-than-these-troglodytes," tell me what the natural levels of fluorine are in the area in question.
If we do indeed know better, then we have measured said natural levels and taken that into account before we determine whether we need to fluoridate our water, haven't we? That's why we fund scientists and medical professionals who can answer such questions -- because we often don't have the resources to do first-hand research.
Too often, it's anti-government sentiment that hinders such policies. In Nevada, for example.
"60 percent of the U.S. population lives in an area with fluoridated water. These areas have 30 percent less childhood decay than nonfluoridated areas."
Quote: DocI have never worked in the field of water purification/treatment, but I highly suspect that the fluorine addition processes are controlled based on the fluorine level of the finished product. If there is enough in the water supply, you add less or none in the processing plant. At least that is how it would be handled in most industrial processes.
Sure. But government industrial processes tend to be different. For example, if the level for promoting dental health were X parts per million, and the natural level were 1.5X parts per million already, some governments would choose to decree the needed level to be 2X parts per million, just so they can claim "We've given you better teeth!"
Quote: MathExtremistIf we do indeed know better, then we have measured said natural levels and taken that into account before we determine whether we need to fluoridate our water, haven't we?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But then you'd have no trouble telling me what the levels are.
Me, I've no idea. For all I know the water in that area is particularly fluorine poor. But I don't just casually assume something is right and beneficial just because the government does it.
Quote: AZDuffmanMainstream Republicans should quit pretending they are Democrats...
You're right. Bush didn't betray liberals when he got the federal government involved in local schools with "No Child Left Behind". Bush didn't betray liberals when he instituted a $549 billion socialized medicine bill for prescription drugs. Bush betrayed his own gullible supporters.
Quote: AZDuffmanBTW: are you offering the Democrat Party the advice of distancing themselves from the Occupy Wall Street riots, or does that group "represent America?"
The Dem politicians are two-faced hypocrite liars who cheer on the Occupy Wall Street hippies while accepting millions in contributions from the same Wall Street bankers they publicly denounce. We know how this thing will end: the protests will eventually fizzle out, and when it's all over the hippies will loyally re-elect the same pandering Dem politicians who sneer at them behind their backs.
The spinmeisters in both parties are experts at manipulating their own faithful followers. For example, in fall of 2008, partisans in the conservative media referred to TARP as "Pelosi's bailout" while partisans in the liberal media referred to the exact same bill as "Bush's bailout." They avoid responsibility for their own votes by blaming the other guy. (The truth is that the bailout was completely bipartisan, and safely sailed through the Senate by a comfortable margin of 74 to 25.)
No wonder George Washington had such cynical views of political parties. When will we wise up?
Congress has an 11% approval rating. I wonder why.
Quote: NareedYou'd think so, wouldn't you? But then you'd have no trouble telling me what the levels are.
Me, I've no idea. For all I know the water in that area is particularly fluorine poor. But I don't just casually assume something is right and beneficial just because the government does it.
That's just a non-sequitur. You don't know how wide the lines painted on the pavement in your city are, but you casually assume that the government transportation crew paints them properly. Presumably you trust in the government to handle that bit of minutiae, at least without verifying that the regulations require street lines to be 15cm wide.
But I get it -- you don't trust government much in general, and that's fine. There are a lot of people in the U.S. who feel the same way. The problem is, the only alternative to government that anyone's put forth is private corporate control, and that has the well-known effect of channeling capital away from the general public and toward a small number of shareholders (and an even smaller number of executives). It's terribly ironic that the lower-middle-class Tea Party rank-and-file don't understand that their situations will worsen, not improve, in the smaller-government world they espouse.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's just a non-sequitur.
No, it's not.
Quote:You don't know how wide the lines painted on the pavement in your city are, but you casually assume that the government transportation crew paints them properly. Presumably you trust in the government to handle that bit of minutiae, at least without verifying that the regulations require street lines to be 15cm wide.
I can tell they look pretty much the same all over toen. i can also tell they're badly paitned in some cases. A continous line on a two way street means no passing is allowed. So why do we get striped lines in some two way streets and "no passing" signs on the sidewalks?
Quote:But I get it -- you don't trust government much in general, and that's fine.
I don't trust government outside its proper functions, because government can only act though force and coercion. That's fine for police, courts, jails and the military. it isn't when it comes to all sorts of consensual activites between private individuals.
Quote:The problem is, the only alternative to government that anyone's put forth is private corporate control,
I don't want an alternative to governmetn. It's clear we do need to delegate the use of force and coercion to only one actor, otherwise you have anarchy and chaos. That doesn't mean governemnt always knows best, or that if government doesn't force people to do something they won't do it on their own.
Quote: NareedIt's clear we do need to delegate the use of force and coercion to only one actor, otherwise you have anarchy and chaos. That doesn't mean governemnt always knows best, or that if government doesn't force people to do something they won't do it on their own.
In the specific case of fluoridated water, that's precisely what it means. The dental statistics are clear -- districts with unfluoridated water have a meaningful and statistically-significant increased incidence of cavities than districts with fluoridated water supplies. That is unexplainable but for the fact that individuals do *not* always do what they should otherwise do to protect their teeth in the absence of fluoridated water. You don't dispute this, do you?
If not, do you oppose the government fluoridating the water supply to achieve appropriate fluoride levels as determined by dental professionals? And if you do oppose fluoridation, on what basis do you justify the increase in dental health problems as being good for society?
Quote: MathExtremistIn the specific case of fluoridated water, that's precisely what it means. The dental statistics are clear -- districts with unfluoridated water have a meaningful and statistically-significant increased incidence of cavities than districts with fluoridated water supplies. That is unexplainable but for the fact that individuals do *not* always do what they should otherwise do to protect their teeth in the absence of fluoridated water. You don't dispute this, do you?
Assuming such studies controlled for other factors, no.
But I dispute it's only the govenrment's right to do something about it, or that it should do anythign at all. For instance, it could be added to salt, too, or sold as supplements, or added to sugar. Parents could then do what they should for their children.
And I will ask again: what are the natural fluorine levels in areas where fluorine is added to the water?
But I predict you'll get tired of beating a dead horse, expecially one that's too small and trivial to bother with. Government putting lfuorine in the drinking water is pretty low on the totem pole where meddling is concerned.
Quote: MathExtremistBut I get it -- you don't trust government much in general, and that's fine. There are a lot of people in the U.S. who feel the same way. The problem is, the only alternative to government that anyone's put forth is private corporate control, and that has the well-known effect of channeling capital away from the general public and toward a small number of shareholders (and an even smaller number of executives). It's terribly ironic that the lower-middle-class Tea Party rank-and-file don't understand that their situations will worsen, not improve, in the smaller-government world they espouse.
You have a few problems in your thought process. First, capital doesn't channel to shareholders or executives. Capital comes FROM shareholders. And shareholders tend to allocate capital in a better way than government. This is why ExxonMobil attracts private capital and Solyndra not as much. Capital does not get channeled to "executives." Executives are nothing but employees of the shareholders.
How will the situation of the average joe worsen under smaller government? Please explain. And please explain without silly examples like firing all the cops, which nobody in the Tea Party has called for.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow will the situation of the average joe worsen under smaller government?
well, I don't think most people even know how they might be affected.
Here's a nice list of federal programs to consider how to preen and how the average joe might be affected.
Federal funding is unequivocally going to be unfair so as, taking from the list for instance to provide adoption services to an area that might not be able to fund the program to the degree needed in that community.
This makes sense to me, though to Rush Limbaugh thinkers it’s just bloat and stealing to allocate resources unevenly, or that private companies instead should be making a profit off of everything.
Quote: rxwinewell, I don't think most people even know how they might be affected.
Here's a nice list of federal programs to consider how to preen and how the average joe might be affected.
Federal funding is unequivocally going to be unfair so as, taking from the list for instance to provide adoption services to an area that might not be able to fund the program to the degree needed in that community.
This makes sense to me, though to Rush Limbaugh thinkers it’s just bloat and stealing to allocate resources unevenly, or that private companies instead should be making a profit off of everything.
This is at least as bad as thought, I got to the "Cs" and already saw many places to cut. But the bigger point is that so much of it is still not government's place. Lets take the arts for one example. The NEA was started in 1965 and some people consider it "vital" to the arts today. However, it is not and is really a waste of government money. There were private patrons of the arts as far back as the Greek Empire. In the USA men like Andrew Carnegie were building museums in the late 1800s. The Feds simply should not be wasting our money--if art needs to be subsidized it really was not needed in the first place.
The bigger problem, though, is government "running" and taking things like the student loan program over. Banks did this just fine, then someone cried that they were "greedy," or/and "making a profit off students," so the feds took it all over. Now instead of a bank that has a vestes interest in servicing said loans as efficiently as possible you have yet more governmnet employees along with more governmnet power over more of "the averags joes."
Garbage collection, transit, the list goes on and on. And the among the worst parts it is allowed to happen is because too many people equate "profits" with "greed."
Quote: AZDuffmanThe NEA was started in 1965 and some people consider it "vital" to the arts today. However, it is not and is really a waste of government money. There were private patrons of the arts as far back as the Greek Empire. In the USA men like Andrew Carnegie were building museums in the late 1800s. The Feds simply should not be wasting our money--if art needs to be subsidized it really was not needed in the first place.
That's the same idea that says, that the school district with the poor kids won't get the same exposure to various cultural opportunities because each district only funds what it can afford. Now take it to the federal level and simply let arts flourish only when a private entity will fund it.
Yeah, I realize if a kid never gets a federally funded symphony to his town, he can make a good living mispronouncing English doing whatever hip hop style he happens to have around him and that will be a suitable solution for many people. And I'm not specifically meaning minorities either.
Perhaps the idea of filling the world with more ghetto-ish or hillbilly characters is charming if it will save your wallet.
Quote: rxwineThat's the same idea that says, that the school district with the poor kids won't get the same exposure to various cultural opportunities because each district only funds what it can afford. Now take it to the federal level and simply let arts flourish only when a private entity will fund it.
Yeah, I realize if a kid never gets a federally funded symphony to his town, he can make a good living mispronouncing English doing whatever hip hop style he happens to have around him and that will be a suitable solution for many people. And I'm not specifically meaning minorities either.
Perhaps the idea of filling the world with more ghetto-ish or hillbilly characters is charming if it will save your wallet.
Seems like you are following the logic of "we can't cut anything because it might hurt someone, somewhere." You are also somehow buying into the ideal that liking the symphony will make you wealthy or that most wealthy people like the symphony. Neither is true.
And I don't quite get how having a symphony in town will keep someone from mispronouncing english.
Quote: AZDuffmanSeems like you are following the logic of "we can't cut anything because it might hurt someone, somewhere." You are also somehow buying into the ideal that liking the symphony will make you wealthy or that most wealthy people like the symphony. Neither is true.
And I don't quite get how having a symphony in town will keep someone from mispronouncing english.
Nah, I'm just rejecting the idea that providing cultural enrichment need only be where private enterprise will bother to fund it
Of course you have to believe cultural enrichment is good for not only those who can afford it, but those who can't.
There's no value in ignorance.
Quote: rxwineThere's no value in ignorance.
There are many people in this country who disagree with this premise. I personally believe there is great harm in ignorance, but there is a strident anti-intellectual cadre in American politics that believes otherwise.
As to cultural enrichment, numerous studies have shown that students trained in musical performance have superior academic records (in the aggregate) than the average student. It is a shame that many so-called social conservatives find no value in the arts.
The only president over the past 25 years to decrease the deficit was a sax player. Just saying. :)
Quote: MathExtremistAs to cultural enrichment, numerous studies have shown that students trained in musical performance have superior academic records (in the aggregate) than the average student. It is a shame that many so-called social conservatives find no value in the arts.
A classic case of correlation <> causation. But it isn't a matter of "finding no value in the arts" but that we shouldn't be funding them at the level we are. People want their kids to play an insturment? Fine, pay for lessons. Same as if you put your kid in little league or any other number of extracurricular activites.
Quote:The only president over the past 25 years to decrease the deficit was a sax player. Just saying. :)
Newt Gingrich, the man responsible for the balanced budget, was not president. The sax player you refer to fougt the balanced budget every step of the way.
Quote: avargovI just choked on a tortilla chip when I read the Newt Gingrich comment.....
I guess you thought you were talking to someone who didn't remember the 1990s? Because Clinton fought the balanced budget every step of the way, going so far as to shut the government down to avoid cuts he didn't like.
Quote: AZDuffmanI guess you thought you were talking to someone who didn't remember the 1990s? Because Clinton fought the balanced budget every step of the way, going so far as to shut the government down to avoid cuts he didn't like.
Didn't even think about who I was talking to...just read the comment and nearly choked. I do my best to stay out of partisan politics, because, I know opinions can't be changed on either side, and both sides will defend the "truth" to the death.
I truly don't care what happens in politics. It generally doesn't affect me, and if it does, generally there is nothing I can do about it, other than try to bend rules into my favor. The rest is all rhetoric. No one really cares what I think, or what you think. "Healthy debate" is a waste of time as we are not in a position to change anything.
Now a third party, a real third party (not those libertarian jokers, most reasonable people stopped talking about that nonsense in high school), would be refreshing. I might even have an interest again if my choices were not always Jack Johnson and John Jackson. Like Carlin said, you ain't in the club, and you ain't ever gonna be in the club. So just bend over and let 'em screw you with the big red, white, and blue dildo. (paraphrased)
Otherwise, who cares who balanced a budged, who gets credit, who started the unpaid for wars, who started taxing unemployment, who pushed healthcare through, who screwed up social security, and so on and so on and so on. They are all exactly the same. No new ideas. It makes me sad to be part of the system sometimes.
Quote: avargovNow a third party, a real third party (not those libertarian jokers, most reasonable people stopped talking about that nonsense in high school), would be refreshing. I might even have an interest again if my choices were not always Jack Johnson and John Jackson.
I rarely understand what people seem to want in "a third party." Third party movements tend to be radical (Greens) or one-issue (Perot.) In the USA system third parties make little sense as you do not need a majority to form a government only a pluarality. If we had a parlimentary system and you needed a majority to "form a government" a third party has a bit of leverage. But you would still have the one-issue-or-racical-or-both problem.
A bigger issue is that Americans, quite frankly, need to grow up when it comes to politics. If all the candidates want to do is agree on everything we get people saying, "there is no choice!" (think Bush/Gore in the 2000.) If they draw differences people say they "hate all the fighting." (think Obama vs the GOP today.) I attribute much of this to the chick-ification of American Society since the early 1980s (even early 1970s.) Almost every guy running is afraid to be a John Wayne type.
Quote:Otherwise, who cares who balanced a budged, who gets credit, who started the unpaid for wars, who started taxing unemployment, who pushed healthcare through, who screwed up social security, and so on and so on and so on. They are all exactly the same. No new ideas. It makes me sad to be part of the system sometimes.
Well, I care because I want to re-elect the people who really did the best job. People voted for Obama in part because they thought under Democrat Party rule the USA had a booming economy, in reality Clinton benefited from many things he had zero to do with. Now we are seeing what really happens when you keep calling for more taxes and regulation.
Quote: AZDuffmanA classic case of correlation <> causation.
Do you actually think I am making such a logical fallacy? I meant exactly what I said. The studies I'm referring to have shown a causative effect on academic excellence, learning ability, and even brain size. As for paying for musical instrument lessons, thousands of parents are glad to do so but there is little point if there is no band or orchestra available in which their children can play. You speak as if you're a non-musician and don't understand how the public school system currently works (when music programs exist): students are expected to learn their instruments in lessons and practice on their own time. Ensemble rehearsal and performance are entirely different activities than individual practice. When school music budgets are cut, the ability of the student to take individual lessons is not affected. What's lost is the central program for students to rehearse and perform. You might argue that such a program could be more efficiently conducted by the private market, but I would counter that music education is the perfect example of what belongs in a publicly-funded educational system. Musical education makes you smarter, and cutting public funding for music education in schools is detrimental to the overall intelligence of our society. It's a mystery to me why anyone would want their kids to be dumber than they could be, but it's also a mystery to me why anyone would disfavor intelligence in general.
Is there any benefit in being less intelligent?
Quote: MathExtremistDo you actually think I am making such a logical fallacy? I meant exactly what I said. The studies I'm referring to have shown a causative effect on academic excellence, learning ability, and even brain size. As for paying for musical instrument lessons, thousands of parents are glad to do so but there is little point if there is no band or orchestra available in which their children can play. You speak as if you're a non-musician and don't understand how the public school system currently works (when music programs exist): students are expected to learn their instruments in lessons and practice on their own time. Ensemble rehearsal and performance are entirely different activities than individual practice. When school music budgets are cut, the ability of the student to take individual lessons is not affected. What's lost is the central program for students to rehearse and perform. You might argue that such a program could be more efficiently conducted by the private market, but I would counter that music education is the perfect example of what belongs in a publicly-funded educational system. Musical education makes you smarter, and cutting public funding for music education in schools is detrimental to the overall intelligence of our society. It's a mystery to me why anyone would want their kids to be dumber than they could be, but it's also a mystery to me why anyone would disfavor intelligence in general.
Is there any benefit in being less intelligent?
I positively hated music class. When we had a class singing program my reaction, and I am not joking here, my reaction to the class music pagent was that we were being punished for something. But I do have an idea how it works. When I was in school we had "music class" and there was "band." The former was required. Some of the kids enjoyed it, others like me felt it was what it must have been like if your bomber was shot down behind enemy lines and you had to sing propoganda songe. (Can you tell I HATED it?) The music teacher was on the general payroll. "Band" was optional with parents paying for the insturment and lessons. There was some sort of holiday and year end recital, which we saw as a school in the day then again for the families at night. In high school, all music and band was optional. After the last class of 8th grade I never sang another note in a music class.
The problem here is that back when I was in school (1970s-1980s) there was a music teacher on the payroll as part of the staff. Now, we spend more in real terms yet are told "the money is not there!" Well, there is a budget, so if we want music class then all other salaries need to be cut to fit it back in.
But my beef was directed more at the NEA. The NEA is a bunch of grants to fund "arts." But there is no reason for this in a developed country, or any country. History is full of men who funded arts, Andrew Carnegie one of the earlier ones. Or some people who made their fortune in the arts (Madonna, etc) should step up and do it.
We can't fund everything just because "it might be good."
