You're confusing "stupid" with "ignorant". Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
If you've reached the point in your life where you've been elected to public office, and you're still scoring 44% on a basic civics test, it's more likely that you really are "stupid", rather than simply "ignorant".
I'm quite glad we live in a republic, where the stupid elect those who have demonstrated they at least have machiavellian intelligence. It's fortunate for all of us that one breed of intelligence usually includes others as well. -_-
Does it really? This report begs to differ. Elected officials are actually dumber than the general public, at least when it comes to civic literacy: Elected Officials Score Lower than the General Public In Civic Literacy Test
As it is patently obvious to anyone who followed the Georgia/Russia conflagration to any degree, it was the Georgians who launched a surprise attack on South Ossetia...
This is patently obvious to anyone? Hardly. Before accusing another poster of ignorance, perhaps you yourself should read up on the subject. Here is a good place to start:
Michael Totten's report from Tbilisi, Georgia
You may find the truth is more complicated, and different, than you believe.
OK, here's a test: name any country that "doesn't like" Belgium, or New Zealand or Sweden or
Right, name the last time the world depended on Belgium, New Zealand, Sweden or... (the list goes on) to solve any problem, or come to anyone's aid in their time of need, or make any tough decision on a matter of any international consequence.
Like it or not, after WW2 the US became the only country in the West to have any major international responsibility. Every NATO country depends on the US almost exclusively for their national defense. Because of the global scope of US military involvement during/after WW2 and during the Cold War, to this day the US is the only country with the responsibility to keep rogue nations and aggressors in check.
When you're the only guy who has to make all the tough decisions, obviously you're going to make some enemies. The US has far more allies than enemies, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
The US has made mistakes of course, but has also brought a tremendous amount of peace and prosperity to a big portion of the world. I don't think the answer to today's threats is for the US to withdraw from its international responsibilities, stop making the tough decisions and become more like Sweden, just voting "present" and hoping that won't piss anyone off.
So are you saying that Obama is opposed to private schools? Is that it? If not, what is your point? My point is simply that you gush over private schools, while ignoring the reality that public schools have to deal with.
What in the world are you talking about? Nobody is against private schools. I'm not gushing over private schools. I'm saying we should identify the things that make our college (both public and private) and private school systems work so well, and apply those concepts to the public school system, where possible.
We can't apply everything - for example we can't have public schools denying certain students admission (or can we? I don't know, think about it) - but principles like school choice, competition for students and their voucher money, competitive teacher salaries based on performance, the ability to fire teachers for performance-related issues, these things will most definitely work to improve the quality of public schools.
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.
