Comment Re:Dear ACM, STOP. (Score 1) 474
I must be crazy. As far as I knew, Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act, into law around 1980, and Reagan tried to destroy it as soon as he got into office.
Comment Re:Dear ACM, STOP. (Score 1) 474
First: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and then Federalist papers 41-44 are very clear that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it in that section. And that the "general welfare" clause (the first clause of the section) does NOT mean that the feds can do anything they want.
Second: The Department of Education wasn't around for the first 200 years of this country. To think that states and local communities are incapable of running their own educational systems is ridiculous considering you only need to look back 30 years to see a United States without a Department of Education.
Third: These aren't "handouts." They are more "hand-backs," if you will. Perhaps if the federal government wasn't (again, blatantly unconstitutionally) so hellbent on stealing nearly half of my income year in and year out, states, communities, and people would have plenty of money to fund their own educational systems and schools.
And in response to those who think local schools shouldn't be allowed to set their own educational agendas because they are "inbred, God-fearing fools" (I paraphrase), why the hell not? What makes you so certain you are right? In a system where states and local communities were responsible for their own education, those states and communities producing the "smartest" people would naturally rise to the top (be the most desirable places to live, have the strongest economies, etc) while those with crappy systems would be forced to either change or fall behind (it would be their choice - if people in that community were happy falling behind, good for them. If they weren't, individuals and families could freely move to another community or state or the community/state could collectively change its policy...). The entire idea of the federal government mandating nationwide curricula is absurd, and only partly due to this lack of competition (as others have already stated, the federal government is SLOW...). It hasn't worked for the last 30 years and 4 presidents - I find it hard to believe it will work for Obama (then again, maybe he'll prove me wrong - I sure as hell hope so...).
Comment Re:Dear ACM, STOP. (Score 5, Interesting) 474
Thank you, thank you, thank you for tossing some common sense on this. The Department of Education is not only unconstitutional (and thus, illegal), it DOESN'T WORK. Schools should be accountable to local communities and parents, NOT federal government bureaucrats.
Even better than state governments, the ACM should be petitioning city and county Boards of Education to possibly include a greater emphasis on computer science in K-12 education.
Comment Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score 2, Informative) 603
Um, the Bill of Rights are amendments (read: updates) to the Constitution...
Submission + - Comcast actively interferes with file-sharing (yahoo.com)
cdw38 writes: "The Associated Press claims to have confirmed, through nationwide tests, that Comcast uses company computers to discretely prevent full files to be downloaded via BitTorrent. According to the article, the technology used works by tricking the computers of those sharing the file and those downloading the file into disconnecting sometime during the download. Obviously, this method of preventing users from illegally sharing content also blocks (or greatly hinders the efficacy of) the sharing of legal files via peer-to-peer networks like Bittorrent. Comcast is denying these allegations, which means its virtually impossible for users to complain about this when there's really no hard proof Comcast is interfering and they refuse to admit this. What does Slashdot think?"
Submission + - A New Deal for Globalization (foreignaffairs.org)
cdw38 writes: ""Globalization has brought huge overall benefits, but earnings for most U.S. workers — even those with college degrees — have been falling recently; inequality is greater now than at any other time in the last 70 years. Whatever the cause, the result has been a surge in protectionism. To save globalization, policymakers must spread its gains more widely. The best way to do that is by redistributing income."
Kenneth F. Scheve (Yale University) and Matthew J. Slaughter (Dartmouth Tuck School) present an interesting argument, blaming increasing protectionist sentiment in the U.S. on labor-market performance for all but the most skilled (professional degrees and doctorates) and "the recent absence of real income growth for many Americans" (over 96% of them, according to the article). After ultimately rejecting the adequacy of the current policy discussions to address this problem — those on Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and on increasing investment in education — they propose that redistributing income, not by changing the income tax system but by altering the currently-regressive Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll tax, would allow the benefits of globalization to be more evenly shared in American society and to ultimately curtail protectionism in the U.S. What does Slashdot think?"
Kenneth F. Scheve (Yale University) and Matthew J. Slaughter (Dartmouth Tuck School) present an interesting argument, blaming increasing protectionist sentiment in the U.S. on labor-market performance for all but the most skilled (professional degrees and doctorates) and "the recent absence of real income growth for many Americans" (over 96% of them, according to the article). After ultimately rejecting the adequacy of the current policy discussions to address this problem — those on Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and on increasing investment in education — they propose that redistributing income, not by changing the income tax system but by altering the currently-regressive Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll tax, would allow the benefits of globalization to be more evenly shared in American society and to ultimately curtail protectionism in the U.S. What does Slashdot think?"
