Toadfish Monastery

Quote from: Swatopluk on January 21, 2012, 12:06:02 AM
That would be an option. But the damage has already been done
I am guilty of such stuff too of course, since this is the most-read thread (and the word association thread would be even more inappropriate)

Iirc we have some threads for calls for help/assistance somewhere.

I thought about that was but was mostly bitching (and didn't really expect the offer for help, so extra extra thank you :3). But I'll start a thread, I think.


Last Post

Quote from: Swatopluk on January 20, 2012, 09:18:06 AM
_{far too serious for this thread}

Should I PM you instead?


Last _oops Post

Ah, whichever one dealt with economics in the mid 1930s. D: The article I found that referenced the file didn't specify which one of those it was, and info on the dude I'm looking for is hard to come by. I looked for a way to get in touch with someone in the archives who speaks English, but there's nothing I found on FU or HU's pages that allowed me to contact them (at least in English).

Thank you for the offer to help, whether or not you can do so. <3

Last Post

I'm trying to get at a file that's evidently in the archives of the University of Berlin, but not speaking the language makes it impossible to even find it. If I can find it, I can get it translated, but getting my hands on it is the problem.

Last _{damn my practicality in choosing Spanish} Post

Quote from: Opsa on January 12, 2012, 10:42:32 PM
...and I thought U.S. benefits reeked. What is up with the world leaders?

Corporatism. It's like the Guilded Age all over again.

Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 13, 2012, 03:36:28 AM

Quote from: Opsa on January 12, 2012, 10:42:32 PM
What is up with the world leaders?

Capitalism!

I watched the two major political programs on TV tonight and the benefits fiasco only got a passing fleeting mention in one of them. So, one might also ask, what is wrong with the media, except we know what is wrong with the media (Leverson Enquiry).

I am still fuming at the contents of the welfare bill, slightly commuted by the Lords, but will pass into law in April.

How many companies own the media outlets there?

Having seen what a non-unionized school district can do to its employees, I would never, ever, EVER work in a district without a union, no matter what.

Quote from: Swatopluk on January 11, 2012, 06:53:00 AM
Just for comparision. Over here public schools are financed from the general tax revenue not from specific property taxes from the specific community where the school is located. That eliminates at least the problem of rich schools for rich kids and poor ones for poor. Of course there are still good and bad schools but that at least does not originate from socially lopsided finances.

Hmm, I don't know that I would necessarily support that here (this may be my privilege speaking here, since I went to a decent school district in a wealthier area*). While there are some stunningly wealthy areas, most of California, for example, is pretty poor, and in those areas a lot of their budget comes from federal and state money (because there is a portion set aside for that). Those districts spend a lot of time floundering (part of this is actually due to the incredibly ass-backwards nature of NCLB, which punishes underperforming schools by taking away funding when the reason they're struggling is heavily, heavily related to a lack of money already) and California's education system already sucks - I think we're in the bottom five in the nation. I would rather have *some* good districts than have all of them suck.


*Quite a bit of that district's budget, actually, comes from community bonds, which are voted on by the city it's based in, although there's some unfairness there since the wealthiest part of the district is actually in Fresno rather than in my city so they get our money without paying any in or voting on the bonds.

Quote from: stellinacadente on January 10, 2012, 11:33:09 PM
How about a system with no public schools where the tuition of children that would normally opt for public schools would be covered by the school community?

That's still a public school, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Quote from: stellinacadente on January 10, 2012, 11:33:09 PM
If I really think about it, what really bugs me is not that I have to sped double for my daughter's education, but the fact that not all the schools are the same.

They have you trapped in this rat race for the house in the upper class neighborhood just to give your child a shot at decent education...

and that is the main reason why I went for private: I cannot afford to live in a mansion on the hills... so I opt for an apartment in a decent place and pay what I would pay extra to landlord into my daughter's tuition instead.

For all schools to be the same, they would all need ample funding. Where would that money come from?

Pretty much everything Zono said.

Quote from: Swatopluk on January 10, 2012, 08:14:54 PM
Slightly off-topic but limiting the salaries of public officials (to less than subsistence level) has primarily two effects:
1) rampant corruption because those officials (unless they fall into category 2) have to rely on bribes to survive
2) only people rich enough to live without a salary can be public officials (or they have to be in category1)

Prime example: Rome in republican times. No public position carried a salary but on the contrary carried lots of expenditures candidates* had to pay from their own pockets => sole rule of the rich and corrupt. After the single year in office (of praetor and consul) they got a province to run as propraetor or proconsul. => ruthless exploitation and sucking-dry of those provinces in order to get rid of the debts incurred during time in office and to get enough riches for comfortable retirement. Rome's rule was anything but benevolent.

*candidatus = person wearing a toga candida (snow-white toga). This signified that the person was running for office and symbolized that he had a 'clean vest' (white= colour of innocence)

I can't remember which country it is, but one of those little Asian Tiger island nations (Taiwan, I want to say?) pays their officials an absurd amount - the highest in the world, iirc - and that, combined with the incredibly stiff penalties for corruption means they have the least corrupt government on the planet.

Quote from: stellinacadente on January 10, 2012, 03:41:30 AM

Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on January 09, 2012, 05:36:40 AM
You said you put mini!Stelli into private school because she's doing better there, yes? Is it because the class sizes are small enough that teachers can pay more attention to her? Is the quality of instruction all-around better than in the public system? Better, more up-to-date books?
Did you ever wonder why the public school couldn't offer her that?

No. I put mini-Stelli in private school to avoid the Bible harassment.
Because I want her to be a free thinker and because the Montessori method is something I believe in.

OIC. General, not-specifically-related-to-the-topic, was it teachers or the kids who were harassing? Kids, you can't do much about, but teachers you can take to the principal/district with threats of litigation/publicizing their misdeeds (the ALCU takes cases like this all the time and there are pro bono lawyers doing this if you know where to look/a HELL of a lot rides on a district's reputation).

Scrib,
--ruthless and perfectly willing to be nasty as necessary

Quote from: stellinacadente on January 10, 2012, 03:41:30 AM
one year in public school and she could hardly read
6 months at Montessori and she reads chapter books

I promise you at least part of this is money issues. How many kids were in her class? Especially when dealing with the lower grades, the time a teacher has to devote to each student has a massive impact on their learning. Quality teachers are (often) attracted to schools that can pay them better, too, and teacher quality is the other part of the equation.

Quote from: stellinacadente on January 10, 2012, 03:41:30 AM
more money to schools? not sure about it because of the use they make of it it's not necessarily productive for the children and the money just never seems enough...
on top of the taxes there is the almost weekly charity case for t he school...[/b]

Administration is not afraid of raising their salaries in the face of budget shortfalls (I'm lookin' at you, board of CSU governors), but generally speaking I disagree. And what do you mean "it's not necessarily productive for the children"? Charity case? Do you mean fundraisers the kids do like selling candy and such? You realize that there are activities, which are valid and valuable, that don't get much funding, don't you? EG, I spent years trying to raise money for my high school speech and debate team because we got practically no money from the school even though we consistently were among the best in the state (because, well, football is more visible/exciting/accessible than a bunch of teenagers arguing about foreign policy and morality and acting).
The money is never enough? Well kinda, yeah. New books and good teachers ain't cheap, and neither are quality facilities or awesome educational opportunities.

Quote from: stellinacadente on January 10, 2012, 03:41:30 AM
I wonder what would happen if we half the Military budget and give the other half to education...

A lot of good.

I've paid a bit into social security. It's not actually being put away for me as it is paying for current users, and it's not going to be there when I'm old/disabled enough to collect. Yet I don't mind paying, because I know people who need it benefit. IMO, it's the same thing with school taxes. You aren't using it, sure, but you're helping the neighbor kids (people you actually see and interact with; I have no idea who my money went to support).

Quote from: stellinacadente on January 07, 2012, 01:22:15 AM

Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on January 07, 2012, 01:13:13 AM
You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but that doesn't excuse the system break down (and imo, excuse your taxes). And again, you still benefit from it, if indirectly. Also, your choice to educate your daughter elsewhere is *your* choice, which imo does not mean you get to not pay taxes that fund local schools. Just because you choose to send your girl to a private school doesn't mean the kids in your neighborhood should suffer.

Scribe,

people move in and out of neighborhoods, cities and states all the time...

I don't see schools closing down because of that...

Taxes are imposed for services to the public...
example: you do not have to pay for city sewer taxes if you have a property outside of city limits that is not hooked into the city systems.

you do not pay for services you do not use... this is the only case you do

You're comparing tomatoes and rocks, so to speak. Both are round, neither are sentient, but that's where the similarities stop. Moving is much different than totally removing yourself from the system because you aren't (currently) using it, because moving generally implies that someone is going to take the original resident's place and therefore pay the property taxes that fund the school. Removing yourself from the system means you're still there, but aren't putting in (and therefore depriving schools of much-needed money).



You said you put mini!Stelli into private school because she's doing better there, yes? Is it because the class sizes are small enough that teachers can pay more attention to her? Is the quality of instruction all-around better than in the public system? Better, more up-to-date books?
Did you ever wonder why the public school couldn't offer her that?

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but that doesn't excuse the system break down (and imo, excuse your taxes). And again, you still benefit from it, if indirectly. Also, your choice to educate your daughter elsewhere is *your* choice, which imo does not mean you get to not pay taxes that fund local schools. Just because you choose to send your girl to a private school doesn't mean the kids in your neighborhood should suffer.

Quote from: stellinacadente on January 06, 2012, 03:34:28 AM
I would opt for the option of not paying school taxes to the State (or get a tax refund) if your child is going to private school...

I find my daughter does much better in Montessori and I am paying a tuition that not cheap... why do I have to pay taxes to the State too???

Because you still benefit from them. The kids your taxes are paying to educate will be your daughter's friends, neighbors, co-workers, and so on. They'll be the folk who pay for social security into your old age (assuming you can get SS? I have no idea what the situation is with you), they'll teach your grandkids, and so on.

Simply because you and your daughter does not directly benefit from your tax dollars does not mean you and your daughter do not benefit at all.


/super important issue to Scrib.

Quote from: Aggie on January 06, 2012, 03:54:54 AM
I don't have kids, and I am happy to have my taxes go to fund public education.  If they didn't, we might end up having to underpay teachers to the point that it's a shameful career choice, and end up with some gawdawful broken-down sham of a school system like.....



_{um, nevermind. pardon the untaddy outburst}

Also this.

This is distinctly unTaddy of me, but this is going to be funny. And honestly, I only see it being an issue in the wealthier school districts (because well, the poorer ones don't have parents who can afford this shit and frankly too busy worrying about keeping a roof over their heads to care), and even then I predict steps will be taken (socially) to stop this because of the effect it'll have on test scores ('cause that ain't gonna change, no way no how) and so much rides on those - reputation, funding, etc. - that they'll do whatever they have to shut it down.

Quote from: pieces o nine on January 05, 2012, 04:56:26 AM
Living through a social change is always stressful, regardless of which side one backs. From what I've read of past changes, ordinary people fear that the dissension will split the group irrevocably, and I take heart from that. Perhaps we won't  be fissured into The United States of Canada and Jesusland, after all. But I wonder if there will be a worse alternative (from my perspective, at least): Jesusland, period.

I think the time window of us being able to cleave together is rapidly closing. And also, there are gonna be places that ARE Jesusland, period, and iirc, you and I both live in places that will be Jesusland.

My Android has a mini-usb, same as my old phone and my old mp3. Pretty solid connection for me, but I also have a case which, though gummy and soft, still helps solidify it.

Yerba mate tea. But I desperately wish it was this instead. I am going to make the shit out of the soup once break starts. Ultimate comfort food, combining what looks like a fantastic tomato soup and grilled cheese sammich.

From Thinkprogress

QuoteThe Roberts Court is rightly mocked for its seemingly single-minded willingness to immunize corporations from the laws intended to protect ordinary Americans, but the question presented in a corporate immunity case the justices just agreed to hear is so stark that a decision granting such immunity would verge on self-parody. Or, at least, it would if the consequences of such a decision wouldn't be so tragic and far-reaching.

Indeed, as Judge Pierre Leval explains, if the Supreme Court upholds a Second Circuit decision holding that corporations have total immunity from a law holding the most atrocious human rights violators accountable to international norms, it would enable corporations to profit freely from some of the greatest acts of evil imaginable:

QuoteAccording to the rule my colleagues have created, one who earns profits by commercial exploitation of abuse of fundamental human rights can successfully shield those profits from victims' claims for compensation simply by taking the precaution of conducting the heinous operation in the corporate form. Without any support in either the precedents or the scholarship of international law, the majority take the position that corporations, and other juridical entities, are not subject to international law, and for that reason such violators of fundamental human rights are free to retain any profits so earned without liability to their victims. [...]

    The new rule offers to unscrupulous businesses advantages of incorporation never before dreamed of. So long as they incorporate (or act in the form of a trust), businesses will now be free to trade in or exploit slaves, employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots, perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despot's political opponents, or engage in piracy – all without civil liability to victims. By adopting the corporate form, such an enterprise could have hired itself out to operate Nazi extermination camps or the torture chambers of Argentina's dirty war, immune from civil liability to its victims. By protecting profits earned through abuse of fundamental human rights protected by international law, the rule my colleagues have created operates in opposition to the objective of international law to protect those rights.

The centerpiece of this case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, is a U.S. law known as the Alien Tort Statute which allows private parties to be sued for the very worst violations of international law. Nothing in this law distinguishes between violations by actual persons and violations by corporations — and indeed a footnote in a 2004 Supreme Court opinion strongly suggests that the opposite is true. Nor is there any international legal consensus granting lawsuit immunity to corporations. Rather, the Second Circuit's majority seems to have invented a new corporate immunity doctrine out of whole cloth.

Moreover, lest there be any doubt, Judge Leval's warning of the consequences of their decision is not hypothetical. Earlier this year, the DC Circuit parted ways with Leval's colleagues — holding that corporations are not free to commit mass atrocities. Had the court gone the other way, it would have completed immunized Exxon from allegations that their agents committed shocking human rights violations while in Exxon's employ:

QuoteIn addition to extrajudicial killings of some of the plaintiffs-appellants' husbands as part of a "systematic campaign of extermination of the people of Aceh by [d]efendants' [Indonesian] security forces," the plaintiffs-appellants were "beaten, burned, shocked with cattle prods, kicked and subjected to other forms of brutality and cruelty" amounting to torture, as well as forcibly removed and detained for lengthy periods of time.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider this issue, Exxon gets another bite at the apple. If the Roberts Court rules their way, Exxon may be the first corporation to celebrate the birth of Leval's nightmare scenario.

"Dreadfully sorry, but the bottom line requires the death/enslavement of you/your family/your town/your people. Here, here's a shovel; dig the grave and get in/run along to the factory now."