Now that I'm back, I can return to the conversation I seem to have started. :)

@Draug:

"I ask this with all sincerity... Did you just suggest the court has the right to tell private / religious schools that they can't teach ID? I ask because that would violate the constitutional guarantee to practice religion by banning an aspect of religious teaching. If you want to say it can't be taught in public schools, fine
But don't you dare imply a Catholic school can't teach ID as it is their Constitutional right to do so."

I will give a Yes and a No in response.

My reasoning?

I agree wtih you--if it's a private school, they have the right to teach whatever curriculum they want, so long as it's legal and non-phate centric (obviously if someone starts a "Suicide Bomber Private School" or "Jew-Killing Youth Academy," we have a bit of a problem, as freedom of speach/practice does not extend so far as to allow for intimidation or overt threats and harm...to quote John Stuart Mill, "the freedom to swing my fist ends with your face.")

So if a Catholic school wanted to teach Intelligent Design, they have every right to.

With one caveat.

IF they are freely and openly telling the parents of those students that attend their school that ID is NOT accepted as valid by the scientific community and by the vast majority of the people at large, and that the SAT or future college entrance exams or classes, however, WILL expect a knowledge of or at least acknowledgement of evolution in biology classes...that's fine.

BUT if the school falsely advertises and does NOT admit this, I would call foul in that parents have the right to know what is expected of their children in the world at large, and so sending them to a school to learn what most in this nation and the world would call a psuedo-science that's really a ham-fisted attempt to force theology back into classrooms and young minds and NOT telling them so, but saying, "Yes, Harvard and Yale DO teach ID, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Jimmy and Sally will be PERFECTLY prepared!" then I have a problem.

Granted it's likely most parents wouldn't CARE about this; after all, chances are, if you're sending Jimmy and Sally to Young Catholics Nazarene Academy, chances are, the parents probably know what to expect.

BUT...

I'd also say that a child of "college application age"--16 or older--should ALSO have the right to choose if he wishes to attend this school or not, without a parent or truancy officer forcing him to attend if he decides he DOESN'T want to be "prepared" for the outside world by folks giving a theory that's scientifically unsound and will hinder him if he wishes to pursue a career in science.

So if he wants to leave at 16, he should be allowed to...I think the State can afford to pay for all of 1 class for the kid...

So he goes to a REAL biology class for those years, and gets to actually have a shot at a Biology-centric college and career if he so chooses.

@Santa:

"hear those Brown vs. Board of Ed judges were activist too..."

+1...

"herman cain is a fucking business man with no political background"

That is why I support him.

Obama is a politician. His presidency has been a failure so far.
George W. Bush was a politician. His presidency was a failure.
Most of Congress are politicians. Congress is not working right now.

Is anyone else seeing a trend? I'd rather have an ordinary citizen with real world business experience running the country than a politician like Bush or Obama or Perry or Bachmann or Romney.

Yes...government is run by people holding political offices..ie, politicians...

By definition, when Herman Cain gets elected, he is now a politician. I have heard him on the radio, he is pretty political as it is....or really stupid.

Before being a politician, George W. Bush was a businessman.

Not a very good one, but still.

Clinton was a politician, but the country did pretty well under him.

@Tantris - Yeah, right... Taxes were 25% higher across the board under Clinton than under Bush.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html

And the deficit was infinitely smaller...because there wasn't one.

And so was my pocket book. Typical tax us to death liberals. Instead of cutting spending to bring the deficit in check, they just want to take my hard earned money.

And NAFTA was a Clinton piece of crap as well, plus he expanded the H1B Visa program which is resulting in unemployed Americans now when there are still H1B Visa scabs from India taking our jobs away. <sarcasm>Yeah, Clinton did a *GREAT* job for this country.</sarcasm> A job all the unemployed are still feeling today.

Oh my god! A president raising taxes when we're losing money? BURN HIM!

No, your pocket book was not infinitely smaller, because you had one.

@Draugnar:
The economy was booming...it seems like raising taxes on the upper class actually helps the economy based on past performance. As for NAFTA...yeah, I don't like that much. Regardless, the country was in better shape and growing. The deficit was under control. You must be making a great deal of money to notice a huge difference now...or you may just be exaggerating, because you are against taxes.

OK, So my pocket book was just samller, not infinetly smaller. Hadn't thought about the infinite part of your statement. Of course, you assume I had one. For all you know, I may have had no money in my pocket during the Clinton years, making it infinitely smaller. :-) I know my savings accoutn was truly infinitely smaller. It ended the era of Clinton closed out.

Mine ended the era of Bush closed out.

I prefer tax and spend to spend and don't tax, which seemed the Bush mantra.

I make 85K in salary and another 20K in bonuses. Is that enough for you? My household income was little less under Clinton than now as my wife worked then, but I only made about 65K. We paided more in taxes each year than my wife took home (15K or thereabouts) under Clinton. I pay less taxes now than then yet make more money.

Oh, I agree Bush was bad for America. Although, some of the spending was two wars (one justified, one *not*) plus Hurricane Katrina was a major drain on the money. Clinton had no wars (kudos for him, but lucky too as Afghanistan was justified and necessary) and nor did he have to deal with any major natural disasters. He was given a much more stable world over the course of his presidency. and stability makes it easier to not operate in the red.

@Tantris - It wasn't just the upper class. Look at the link I sent. Clinton raised taxes across the board and then Bush *cut* them *across the board*. You liberals think it is just upper class we are talking about. I'm not upper class. I fall in the top 20%, yes, but that is just the upper side of middle. And Clinton taxed *all* of America.

@ Jack

''I wouldn't call Bush v Gore or City of New London activist verdicts''

In the case of Bush v. Gore didn't the court split entirely on political grounds? Certainly this guy thinks so: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sctsuicide.html
Indeed the five majority judges were all republican appointees, was this a coincidence do you think?

How about Judge Vinson on Obama's healthcare sheme? "This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the 'normal rule' that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute," AND "but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated."

Finally if a judge in such an ''elevated'' position can write that, I say all power to the humble member of the jury who says something like this - ''I believe the defendant committed the crime, but on this occassion I will not convict because I believe that the law is morally wrong''. Would you have him charged with contempt of court Jack?

@ Tantris

Washington is run by career politicians who often don't have any idea how the real world works. Why do you think America is going down the toilet?

I realize that Herman Cain would technically become a politician once elected, but he is not currently a politician. I trust a non-politician more than a politician.

@ SD

Bush was not a very good businessman or president. What if there was a correlation? Herman Cain is a very good businessman, so wouldn't he be a very good president?

Draugnar + 1

I don't really hold Bush responsible for the Katrina response. There were a lot of factors that contributed to that particular clusterfuck. I only hold Bush responsible for Iraq.

@Gunfighter - I think you and I so align on our views politically... One of these days, I'll have to buy you a drink. Where are you from?

I think part of how good of a president you appear to be after the fact comes from what cards you were dealt and not from any innate ability. I mean, Hoover, for instance, was a fantastic engineer and pretty much America's wunderkind in so many ways, and there's no doubt that Coolidge knew what was right around the corner in order to let someone else take the bath on it. And yes, Bush got handed September 11, 2001 and Katrina and both of those sucked really hard. Obama inherited two wars and a very polarized America where neither Dems or Republicans were willing to seriously sit down and talk to each other. I do think each of those presidencies have their merits, Bush's immediate response to 9/11 was fantastic right up through the Afghanistan invasion.

I really don't know much about Cain, I should correct that, but I don't think being a good businessman makes you necessarily a good politician. Here in Michigan, Rick Snyder, who was a great businessman, is a slimy at best politician.

It honestly depends on their motivations. Ross Perot, despite being a bit of a conspiracy theorist had the right motivations and desire. I can't speak to Cain's motivations or this Rick Snyder's.

@Draugnar:
The marriage penalty change was a pretty big deal, and is probably the thing that has helped you the most. So, leave that in place, which everyone wants to, and lets let most of the other tax cuts expire.

The thing is, Bush cut taxes a lot, while increasing spending a lot. We are in this huge deficit now. You can do one or the other...and technically, if you do one, you should do the opposite of the other. I am not a tax and spend person, I just want both parties to behave sanely. The Democrats are more sane on some parts of the budget...like, when you spend more you have to increase taxes to pay for it. Does that make them tax and spend, or just someone living in reality? The Republicans want to cut taxes, while increasing spending, and claiming that this will actually be ok because the tax cuts will increase federal revenues. Not sane.

@Tantris - Agreed. Bush let spending get out of control while cutting taxes. We had some extra spending had to be done for the one war (we should never have gone to Iraq) and we had to take care of our own after Katrina, but there were other places toi make cuts and still are. I live within my budget only relying on credit when emergencies arise. Why can't the federal government...

@Draugnar:
During Clinton, there was stuff like this. I mean, we went to Somalia, the Balkans, the end of the first Iraq war...we just didn't actually invade and occupy several countries at a time during his presidency. But then, I don't think we should be occupying countries. There were actually disasters as well. An earthquake in California is the first that comes to mind...with the highways collapsing. The thing is, if you deal with a disaster, no one remembers it very well.

The federal government should live closer to within its means, but...I don't think we can blame Clinton for that one. He did that.

Yes, he did. But arguably, the California quake hit a much smaller area, damage wise, and was much less destructive both in fiscal and human terms than Katrina. The conflicts you mention were small in comparison to just Afghanistan. And I don't think Clinton had to deal with anything on the order of 9/11. There hadn't been an attack on America of that magnitude since Pearl Harbor.

And yes, Clinton did some things right. But he expanded/created some programs that cost money, either directly or indirectly, which didn't need expanding or creating. NAFTA, radically expanding H1B Visas. These two alone have cost Americans jobs. I was replaced at one place by three Indians who were cheaper than me. Then I got called back because they had screwed everything up so bad. Luckily, I was in the position to tell the company to get bent. That project failed miserably and everyone involved in the "replace the locals with cheap Indian labor" has since been asked to resign and had to find new jobs. And, I know that my story is just one story, but I hear these stories from all over the IT industry. H1B Visas and outsourcing of IT has damn near killed the American software development industry. It's just now turning around as companies are discovering that India teaches technically proficient coders, but doesn't train them to think for themsleves or think outside the box. There is no creativity and if it isn't spelled out in the design specs, it won't be implemented, including things like error checking.

If I were hiring right now, I'd take one Kestas (Australian creator of this site) over 5 or 6 Indian developers. They crank out developers via a schooling machine that teaches the rudimentaries and creates coders who can follow instructions but doesn't make them well-rounded developers who can look ahead and see the pitfalls coming up and avoid them.

I don't think that disasters really shake the government financially. Disasters are a relatively small one-time cost. Disasters are really just cable news fodder and an efficiency test for FEMA.

@ Draugnar

I am from America, and I would prefer to keep my whereabouts as vague as reasonably possible. That being said, I do accept your drink and would offer you one in return if we met in real life.