Nix at 22:
I don't think even GWB can directly influence the gas prices (except by declaring war on more Middle-Eastern countries, which is of course quite likely to happen simply because declaring war always boosts the party in power, *sigh*, Thatcher, Putin, and Bush, a gallery of rogues and incompetents).
All true. But also, Bush worked for oil companies and there is a sort of symbiotic relationship: He supports them, with middle-east war, oil reserves, and not looking too closely into gas prices, and they support him by lobbying. Furthermore, oil is one of the biggest of big business, which at some level has a vested interest in keeping Republicans in office. Whether GWB is responsible or not, oil companies drop the price around election time to try to "dim" gas prices as an issue ...
Likewise, the annual drop of gas and oil prices each year in Sept. and Oct. could have nothing to do with big corporations and/or a Republican party that wants to reduce the expenses under social security. It is entirely possible it is an annual event triggered by reduced demand for driving and AC as summer ends and before heating needs go up. But with a steady drop of at least 36 cents per gallon in the past two months, with no other obvious outside reasons, one is entitled to question the likelihood of a motive, or at least the possibility of price fixing.
And, um, I'm not sure which way the elections would go 'if God still loves the US'. After all, the party which most alleges (with ludicrous fervour and occasional acts of criminal stupidity) to 'love God' is the one which every thinking person would rather spent some time out of power
Yes, which would be my argument for why He/She/It may not like us anymore ... "You did what in My Name?"
But seriously, don't by into godless Ann Coulter's -- I mean Godless's Ann Coulter's -- claims for everyone who does not support the Republican (far) right. Just because we don't agree with or believe in their version of God doesn't mean that we have none (OK, it doesn't mean all of us do either, but still.), or that their view of God is the only one, or even the correct one.
In many ways the Republican Right seem like the Puritan Predestinationists: Based on their behavior, they would seem to believe that they are saved by their very belief, and need not subscribe to the actual actions demanded by their own faith.
Either that or they're just hypocritical. I'm not sure.
But, to paraphrase Patrick Henry, "There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations, and he shall raise up friends to fight our battles for us" ... Hopefully in Congress.
Or if you prefer Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time" but hopefully he can't fool the people (again) this time.
It is an ancient moron-er
He lies two times in three.
'By thy lazy smirk and shiftless eye,
Now wherefore speakest thou for me?'
Now six long years had trickled by
And he had trickled us more
The country grim could now see him
Past the platitudes of yore.
He pleaded him with a grasping hand
'We must see it through,' quoth he.
'You've lied!' we cried, and still he tried
To convince despite what all could see!
Ahh, Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Gotta love the classics.
Of course, Chesterton's great too:
The great Gaels of Ireland
Are the men that God made mad.
For all their wars are merry,
And all their songs are sad.
In other news ...
Who wants to start a pool on:
A) How many Homeland Security alerts we have between now and Nov. 7 to remind us who we should believe is the real danger;
B) How much lower the gas prices will plunge between now and Nov 7 to (1) lull people's concerns over republican ties to oil, and (2) bugger the social security formula so payout are lower;
C) How many times after Nov 7 (if God still loves the US) GWB comes out to say that the elections were NOT a referendum on Iraq and his presidency?
There are two things about this law that bother me.
My biggest problem with this is specifically that people in general and politicians in particular are once again assuming that anyone can be an educator -- after all, everyone went to school, everyone has ten plus years of observing teachers, and everyone who has seen that knows how to teach as well as any high school teacher or college professor.
And then, after the teachers advise why it's a bad idea, and are told to stuff it, and the plans of the politicians go wrong, it's the teacher's (or teachers'?) fault!
There are one or two other fields where this brand of illogic holds true -- the military, police, and writing come to mind -- and it never, or rarely ever, works.
The second problem is that it's a form of censorship, even if it is self-censorship. And if, as some have already intimated on this site, 18 of every 20 or 20 of every 25 students in two or three consecutive classes decide to opt out of a particular book, that text gets dropped, and the censorship goes from self-censorship to true censorship -- others deciding what I can't or shouldn't read.
That having been said, there are a host of stories at colleges, among friends, and even a couple here in this thread, where people claim to not go to class, read all the texts at home, and ace the tests, or to go to class, listen to lectures, and blow off the books, and do well in the course.
It would be most intriguing to see a class based on this law, where the professor provides students a list of dates and lecture topics, and a syllabus defining the goal of the course with whatever paper assignments laid out without any mandated texts.
i.e.: By the end of this course you should understand the reason for the development of satire in the restoration, and be familiar with the works of Pope, Swift, Aphra Behn, Oliver Goldsmith and Lady Mary Montague.
There will be three papers due this term. The first is due in three weeks. Read three works by Pope, two by swift and two by Behn, and write a six page paper explaining the significance of social criticism to the three writers.
The second paper will be due October 19th. Read three poems and one play by Behn, and fifteen letters by Lady Montague and write a six page paper on the status of women in 18th century England and how it was reflected on stage.
It would require the teacher to be aware of all works, but gets rid of any book requirement at all.
And that of course is the other problem with the law: it does state the student petitions for alternate materials.
So what is the professor supposed to do? Order 25 copies of each of the approved texts for the course, and then another twenty-five copies of an alternate selection for each of those books?
One way or another, you're going to end up with at least 25 un-sold books that the college has ordered. I don't know how much can be returned, or how much charge there would be, but I'm betting it won't be free. And in this era of politicians claiming education is too expensive, who's going to get blamed and eat the charges?
A) the AZ Senate Comm. on Higher Ed.
B) the students
C) the college
I leave this as an exercise to the reader ...
: )
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 5 |
Total: 5 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by pedantic peasant:
Show all comments by pedantic peasant.