Posts Made By: James Brown

Rod Kaufman said:

BUT, if the report IS accurate, and the cuts go in effect as planned, we're really screwed...

Nobody said that steps toward fiscal responsibility and belt tightening would be easy or painless. (Nobody sane said that anyway). The economy tanked for a couple of years after Reagan made his cuts. Then we had a decade-plus of growth.

Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

The GOP budget cuts would cut the growth of the US economy in half this year, according the investment form Goldman Sachs. The Republicans reject the independent report.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-cuts-20110224,0,2687045.story
Ok, we all know the Goldman Sachs crowd are a bunch of commie, socialist, mothers who need to be run by members of the Tea Party in order to get things right. BUT, if the report IS accurate, and the cuts go in effect as planned, we're really screwed...

p.s. Rod, even if the GS report is accurate, do you personally think that the proposed Obama budget is viable? Do you really think we can spend ourselves into prosperity indefinitely?

In my view this could be a choice between being screwed short term versus being screwed long term.

Jim

Thanks for all of the nice comments - it's very encouraging!

Jim

David Cotterell said:

I brought this topic up in another thread but I got no response so I'd like to highlight it a bit here.

It is well known that Public school funding in the USA is highly dependent on the income level (and the resulting home values and the property taxes) at the county/district level. Inner city schools are not funded nearly as well as schools in well-to-do suburbs - this affects facilities, equipment like modern computers, textbook budgets, teacher salaries and so on. Poor rural school districts also suffer from this problem.

I fail to understand why this is tolerated. Why do the children of poorer families not deserve the exact same quality of facility, faculty and equipment as the children of middle and upper-class families?

There is a simple solution to the problem. Take the education portion of the property taxes and direct it to a central 'depository' in each state where the money is doled back out according to the enrolment of each school, not its location. Proper legislation can ensure that the money is fairly distributed. Each of the 50 states has some sort of educational administration department already in existence to administer the funding.

That's how we do it in Ontario and the rest of Canada. Too 'socialist' for you?

Dave

Dave:

I have two main points of reply:

Point 1: In my state Colorado, the per-student expenditure in the inner city schools is a lot higher than in the so-called affluent suburbs. The attached data indicates that the Denver school district (which contains the lion's share of our state's poor and inner-city type populations spends $15,757.00 per student. This is relatively a lot.

My district (Jefferson County) which covers the West Denver suburbs and many West-metro towns is a mix of some affluent, lots of middle class and lots of poor Hispanic communities and schools. The per-student spending in Jefferson County is only $8288.00 per pupil. The very highly regarded Cherry Creek School District that covers the very affluent SE Denver suburbs only spends $8566.00 per pupil and those schools are considered the best in the state. Heck, Aspen only spends $12,000.00 per kid and a starter home there costs upwards of $3,000,000.00.

Our rural school districts, and of course Colorado has lots of them, all seem to spend about the same as or more than the suburban districts. Some are tiny districts so the numbers may be skewed to the high side. (See pages 2 and 3 of the attached.)

http://www.eiaonline.com/districts/Colorado.pdf

So:

A. I think that your main premise, as bolded above is fatally flawed, at least with respect to Colorado. Your post seems to be a classic example of the conventional wisdom being BS. You seem to be bomb throwing and class-baiting without regard to the actual financial facts.

and

B. As others have noted the quality of an education system does not correlate with money. Other factors, (in my opinion the motivation of the parents being #1) are far more important. There is no doubt that the test scores and success rates of the kids in Cherry Creek Schools blow away the Denver Schools as a group, but lack of funds or funding inequality is clearly not the reason.


Point 2: In the US we tend to do school funding at the county level. Why would this fundamental organizational structure be a problem? We value local solutions to local problems in the US. Your attempt to portray a local/county wide shared funding district as "inequitable" and a Canada style province-wide shared funding district as "fair" is super arbitrary, particularly when you look at the actual financials as detailed above. The shared funding lines have to be drawn somewhere - at the county, state or national level. We prefer to draw them at the county/local level. Within the chosen district funds are shared evenly.

So why not have nationwide funding districts? In my view, and I think that historical US values support my view, we value solving problems like education problems with our neighbors. The fact that Denver spends twice what my district spends per pupil is unimportant to me. What matters is that we Jefferson County parents and taxpayers have say and input into the education of our children. Bottom line; I don't want Denver or Washington DC telling my district how to fund itself, and in return, I won't tell them how to spend their funds.



Jim

Wow Greg! That is an absolutely gorgeous image!

Jim

Greg Shaffer said:

QUOTE OF THE CENTURY, PERHAPS EVEN THE MILLENNIUM

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand. (This quote reportedly came from the Czech Republic.) Someone there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do...

THE QUOTE:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

I disagree wholeheartedly - not because I favor Obama, but because I trust the American people. This is the exact type of exaggerated 20/20 hindsight crap that was published in foreign opinion pages when Bush was president - only 180 degrees in reverse. It was garbage then and it is garbage now. Apparently this was published by a Czech writer. America bashing is of course a favorite pastime on the left and right overseas. It gives failed intellectuals in failed countries something to do.

The reality is that our system is self-correcting. Our public really is quite savvy. If the Public deems Obama to be a failure he will be replaced. That is of course what last November was all about. Things haven't always proceeded so smoothly in the Czech Republic. Wake me up when his country has 250 years of freedom under its belt. Heck he is only ten or fifteen years away from totalitarian enslavement and in ten or fifteen years he'll probably be enslaved again. And he calls us fools…

There was a British opinion piece that was identical to this, but from the lefty perspective, posted here when Bush was elected the second time. It fried me then too. I'll go see if I can find it.

Jim

Russ Carroll said:

...if you are, at some level, heading towards Christ and trust Him more than yourself, then your path will lead you to Heaven...


There are also no Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and the like in heaven as well. Heaven is filled with people who are followers of Jesus Christ.

Russ:

I am glad that your view of Christianity is non-exclusive enough to envision sincere Christians of all stripes in heaven. But your post stops well before a critical point.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but:

It would still seem, according to your interpretation of the Bible that noble, honest, and charitable men who died Muslim, Jew or otherwise non-Christian are still damned. Some of these folks have surely died after leading a "Christ-like" life of selflessness and love for their fellow man, yet according to you they presently burn in hell because they had the misfortune to be born outside of the realm of Christian influence. I am talking about noble "Christ-like" Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists etc. Maybe the non-Christian never heard of Jesus or more likely they invested their heart and soul into honorable worship according to the creed that they were born with.

God is not so petty and arbitrary as to automatically damn "Christ-like" non-Christians who never had a legitimate chance at Christianity or who worshiped according to an alternative creed.

Jim

Russ Carroll said:

Jim,

I really don't feel good at all about the discussion of Hell on this forum yesterday, and here is why: a correct or incorrect view of Hell's existence is not a requirement to becoming a Christian. I can now see how unproductive a discussion of its existence is, particularly in a mixed group like this with a very broad range of spiritual beliefs.

This is a close call for me, but I do not see in scripture the need to get this right in terms of being a follower of Christ. What matters is how you personally handle the message of Jesus and how you respond to it.

I would boil His message down to this as it is personally what compelled me to become a follower of Jesus: I am not God, Jesus is, controlling my own life has led me the wrong way, I reject my own ways and accept Christ's ways, I want a new beginning and a real chance to follow Christ. Please forgive my many, many screw-ups that have hurt so many people and help me to not add to this list ever again.

This is how it all started for me. No concept of Heaven or Hell. No analysis of who was or wasn't with God. Just a simple and heartfelt desire to follow after Jesus. At the time, I was not even certain who Jesus was, I only knew that the powerful message of the love that He had for me overcame me and cause a lifetime commitment to Him.

If you have experienced this epiphany and the idea of Anne Frank burning in Hell is an obstacle for you in being obedient to Jesus simple commands, then I say don't believe it. To be a disciple of Christ, one needs to follow His commands: "If you love Me, obey my commandments". This is what the greatest commandment is. He did not say "If you love Me, be really, really smart and have all the answers". In fact, the people He was PISSED at knew and believed the truth intellectually! There actions were completely contrary to loving god (parable of the two sons) and loving others (the parable of the good Samaritan).

For me, the concept of Hell holds only one reality: I don't want anyone to experience it. This motivates me to want to be a better (more obedient) Christian so that my family and friends will see the power of Christ in my own life and desire to follow Him. That's it. I can see that discussing Hell is counterproductive.

Russ

Thanks for the follow up Russ. I do appreciate it. Feel good about it too - I certainly found it to be a useful discussion.

As my final point, I think that It is fair to say that your position is very introspective and personal. You have expressed your thoughts regarding hell in the context of your own Christianity, your own Christian conversion, your own family etc. I think that your post quoted above is very reasonable in this context - the context being a discussion among Christians. The way I might phrase an observation about your collection of posts yesterday is this: Russ is on the path of Christianity. This is the path that God placed before him. This path involves certain obligations and Russ is doing his best to stay on the path.

Here is the punch line from my perspective though; (my whole reason for bringing up Anne Frank which has not much to do with inter-Christian discussion...) In my view, your path is clearly the path for Russ, but not necessarily the path for everyone else.

My problem with the more exclusionary aspects of Doug's Calvinist philosophy or even more liberal but still John 3:16 - centric belief systems is really a problem with organized religion - not a problem with God, Jesus or the Bible. I think that John 3:16 is certainly the path for you, but when Doug says that it is also the one and only path for Anne Frank, Gandhi, or the righteous man who never even heard of Jesus I think that this goes way too far and eviscerates the concept of a just God.

Calvin had no use for a just God. This is reflected in Doug's writing, "some vessels are made to be broken..." I reject that philosophy.

Clyde points out - rather persuasively - that John 3:16 and the Pauline writings are inconsistent with Jesus’ other teachings and his Jewish heritage. I'm OK with that too. John 3:16 and Paul's stuff may actually be later add-ons and nonetheless still define the proper path for you and Doug or me and other Christians. I'm defining Christians as people who are called to the Christian path, whether it is based entirely on the unembellished "authentic" teaching of Christ or not. Even so, to extrapolate this path to Anne Frank as her one and only chance is too unjust to make any sense. If there is a God and if he provides salvation, he can certainly tailor a message/path to each of us. It's not like God is unaware of his audience's circumstances.

You note that the issue of whether or not hell exists is not critical for a Christian. OK. Good point. Most of my writing on this topic is simply an expansion of the (in my view) unrelated thesis that a just God provides a legitimate path for everyone, whether they've heard of Jesus or not. It is our differences in motivation and perspective that cause frustration. I'm talking about the possibility of multiple paths and you are talking about our own path.

Jim

Doug Matulis said:

Jim, what are the hermeneutical principles you use as a guide for your pick and choose theological interpretations of the Bible? Please share...

Doug:

I'll reply simply to note that I don't "pick and choose". That is your conclusion based upon your own perspective that obviously differs from mine. That probably won't make sense to you, but hopefully it will make sense to everyone else who might be reading along.

Jim

David Pitre said:

On Cloudy Nights I posted a thread asking about Dave B's proposed book detailing and compiling mirror tests. It was quickly locked, and I received a terse and cryptic note that he was not to be discussed. A personal message from someone said something about him getting in trouble for a review. Anyone have the scoop? I was just interested in his mirror test book. If this subject is off limits, inappropriate, or hurtful....I'm cool. I don't want to cause a problem.

I can't help you out with your question David. I'm only chiming in to say that this account of CN censorship is really creepy. Maybe you could contact Dave B. directly through Astromart's private message system?

http://www.astromart.com/users/profile.asp?user_id=31155

Not a huge number of users actually read this "No Holds Barred" forum where we basically argue about non-astronomy stuff! So contacting Dave directly would seem like a really good idea.

Good luck, Jim