<p>BTW in case you are wonder Mr Gates is backing Obama</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/submitList.do[/url]”>http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/submitList.do</a></p>
<p>Buffett is covering his bases and donating to both Obama and Clinton.</p>
<p>One of the main functions of large government is to restrict access to markets. Restricted access to markets means less competition and less competition means higher profit margins so it is not surprising that the leaders and owners of America’s largest enterprises would lean toward the party that stood for large government. </p>
<p>There are of course a lot of things that influence political leanings and it is not always strictly self-interest in play. On the whole though most folks vote their interests most of the time and that is why the super rich are Dems. What CEO in the country wouldn’t jump at the chance to dump their health insurance responsibilities into the lap of the federal government with socialized medicine? Only the ones in the medicine business.</p>
<p>The CEO of my own company (and somebody please check her green card because I would love to see her deported) was touting the marvels of the British public health system - something I am willing to bet she never actually used. Altruism aside dumping the companies health insurance bills would be good for the bottom line.</p>
<p>As much I have been arguing with liberal views, I have come to learned how liberal minds work. They like to take a contrarian view to everything. Must be fun to argue a wrong is not really wrong. As others have said before me, the contrarian argument is a capricious one and more colorful, thus become their whole life motto. Being conservative is squared, boring. So is being right.</p>
<p>In the case where posters here argued American kids are NOT falling behind because of askewed way of compiling scores, student population variance…I offer a real life example. I got to know a southeast asian colleague and talked about things that parents care about like schools. His son and daughter entered US high school at the same age as other HS students, but they already met all the math requirements and beyond. Calculus is a requirement for high schools for many countried abroad. Here in the US, one can go through entire college career with nothing more than high school algebra. If you want to know anything about acceleration, capacity, yield, growth…you need an appreciation of calculus. You can’t understand scientific theories, economic models without higher math. An engineere may not use it every day but must retain it to sustain a career and get to the next level. Having said this, who’s better prepared for the global economy ?</p>
<p>You can put blinders on and say I am not worry…</p>
<p>edvest1, In magnet schools or private high schools, it is not uncommon for math oriented students to graduate not only with all calculus courses (including multivariable calculus) but also with courses in differential equation and real analysis. For students that are not placed in such schools, many of them actually take them at local colleges. </p>
<p>At the college my D attends, a small liberal arts college where a student can indeed graduate without ever taken a math course, those students who major in math often come in having already met the basic requirements and proceed to take higher math courses such as set theory, analysis and topology. When I said comparing math skills, I don’t mean the usual HS standardized tests but rather tests such as AIME.</p>
<p>So Edvest, is it your honest opinion that more of the 19 year olds in whatever southeast Asian country you refer to (pick one, any one) have taken calculus than here in America? Did you give any thought to the percentage of kids in that country (again, pick any) who even go to high school?</p>
<p>But since you like to project global conclusions from one family anecdotes, I’ll solve America’s problems: My own kids had all completed high school level math before entering the 9th grade at our local public high school - and they’ve all taken calculus. Hey, problem solved! America wins!</p>
<p>It is hard to compare the US with the rest of the world in educational performance because in most parts of the country we have social promotion virtually all the way through the system. That doesn’t happen in most other countries.</p>
<p>Heck in Germany assuming you get in to the college track classes you have to take a national test to see which universities you can even apply to and what you will be allowed to major in. The rest of the world is not long on holistic admissions or down on high stakes testing.</p>
<p>Heck even in Canada you have to pick your major when you apply and there is no changing after you get in. That is one of the ways they maintain those incredibly low tuitions and high standards. Also don’t look for nanny dormitories.</p>
<p>For good or ill we are not the rest of the world. That is why when I hear some liberal whine about everyone hating us my response is, “Who cares?” You wouldn’t like living in the rest of the world.</p>
<p>Higherlead, I agree with you. We are not like the rest of the world, and overall I’m proud of that fact, for a lot of reasons. One good thing about having different countries try different ways of doing things is so we can compare and learn. I personally kind of like our somewhat-chaotic educational system, which has a lot of different ways for a kid to (eventually) succeed if they have the moxie and determination, even if they don’t “make the cut” at age 12 or 14 or 16 like in some countries. In my opinion, the American system wins this one on balance. </p>
<p>Now on health care, I’m siding with the other guys.</p>
<p>Well at least we can agree about something kluge but I would add that what is true about having different countries try different ways also applies to the states. Federalism is a good thing. It may produce kooky Seattle (which has replaced San Francisco are the kookiest city in the kookiest state) and conservative salt Lake City but as a country we are better for it. Live and let live. Now if I can only convince you Libs that Washington is part of the problem not part of the solution regardless of who is in power:-)</p>
<p>I agree that federalism is a good thing - within limits, like everything else. One thing that I feel a lot of people overlook in the horse-race sniping between right and left in America is that most of our disagreements are over matters of degree, but couched in absolutist terms. I’m a proponent of capitalism - but with its excesses moderated by an appropriate degree of government regulation. I suspect we agree on that, but disagree as to what degree is “appropriate” - and there by less than you might think.</p>
<p>On the whole right/left thing:</p>
<p>I have friends who are red state, red meat, red blooded Republicans - but good people, with whom I can enjoy a meal and a conversation. And there are people who overtly share my political views who I’d cross the street to avoid. Reasonable people can disagree, and I enjoy a frank exchange of views with people who bring a different perspective to an issue than my own. But I am aware of the drumbeat of propaganda over the past few decades which has reduced the term “liberal” to an epithet in some circles, and it saddens me. I do believe that there has been a concerted effort to convince people that liberals are evil, weak, traitorous, and unpatriotic through distortion and repetition. I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m not any of those things. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh and he intones about “what liberals think” you’re not going to hear my thoughts reflected. But there are people whose entire fund of what they think is knowledge about “what liberals think” comes from the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter and Fox News.</p>
<p>As to your last comment: Washington can be part of the problem, part of the solution, or neither, depending. I suspect if you think about that you’ll agree. (I don’t know what industry you work in, but I’ll guarantee you that there is some federal regulation, agency, or program which assists your business in some way, if you think about it. And not just the military, postal service, or things like the scientific programs which laid the groundwork for the internet.) Again, it’s a matter of balance.</p>
<p>Its mayor, Rocky Anderson (fromWikipedia):</p>
<p>Anderson was first elected as mayor in 1999 and was reelected for a second four-year term in 2003. Although the office of mayor in Salt Lake City is nonpartisan, Anderson is a registered Democrat, and much of his platform is that of a liberal Democrat. While Utah generally votes Republican in statewide and national elections, Salt Lake City is primarily Democratic in party allegiance.[5]</p>
<p>Anderson has gained international renown for his Salt Lake City Green Program,[6] a comprehensive effort to improve the sustainability and reduce the environmental footprint of Salt Lake Citys municipal operations. Elements of the program, which is said to cover everything from dog waste to nuclear waste, include initiatives to improve the efficiency of the Citys fleet and use of electricity, measures to make Salt Lake City more bicycle-friendly and pedestrian-friendly, and cogeneration plants at the Citys landfill and wastewater treatment facility that recapture methane to generate electricity.</p>
<p>As part of the Salt Lake City Green program, Anderson committed Salt Lake City to the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. Last year, the City surpassed its Kyoto goals, seven years ahead of schedule. In 2003, Anderson received the Climate Protection Award from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Sierra Club acknowledged his environmental work with its Distinguished Service Award. In November of 2005, the Salt Lake City Green program garnered Salt Lake City the World Leadership Award, presented by the World Leadership Forum, for the Environment.</p>
<p>Anderson is a proponent of transit-oriented urban housing and walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods that do not perpetuate dependence on the automobile or further sprawl development.</p>
<p>Anderson is an ardent opponent of tobacco use and has supported legislative measures limiting smoking. He is also one of the most outspoken public critics of Utah’s strict liquor laws. (State law permits the sale of liquor only in restaurants, private clubs, and state-run liquor stores. The majority of bars in Utah function as private clubs with membership fees, and the number of bars on a block face is limited by City ordinance.)</p>
<p>Anderson has been a strong advocate for the rights and interests of minority communities in Salt Lake City. In December 2001, state and federal officials organized a raid at the Salt Lake City Airport that selectively enforced immigration laws against undocumented employees, who were arrested, imprisoned, and lost their jobs. In response, Anderson created the Family to Family program, which made it possible for Salt Lake City families to provide direct emotional and financial assistance to the airport workers and their families. Additionally, the Mayor spearheaded a challenge to English-only legislation in Utah in 2000, and in 2006 spoke at two large demonstrations for comprehensive immigration reform.</p>
<p>For his leadership, Anderson received the League of United Latin American Citizenss first-ever Profile in Courage award, as well as the National Association of Hispanic Publications Presidential Award, in 2006.</p>
<p>Anderson signed an executive order in 2000 implementing a full-fledged affirmative action program in City hiring. This program has led to historic levels of ethnic minority hiring and retention in City government. The City employs 34% more ethnic minorities compared to 1999, with a 90% increase in members of the ethnic minority community holding executive and administrative positions. Members of the minority community comprise more than one-third of his staff and more than one-third of his nominations to City boards and commissions.</p>
<p>Anderson also signed executive orders that extend benefits to domestic partners of City employees, and ban discrimination against City employees on the basis of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. Anderson co-convened the Alliance for Unity, a non-partisan group of religious and community leaders working to build bridges between people throughout Utah.</p>
<p>and…</p>
<p>In 2000, Anderson asked the Salt Lake City Police Department to end its participation in the D.A.R.E. program. He was characteristically direct, telling D.A.R.E. officials: “I think your organization has been an absolute fraud on the people of this country… For you to continue taking precious drug-prevention dollars when we have such a serious and, in some instances, growing addiction problem is unconscionable”.</p>
<p>His words, on March 19th, 2007, during an anti-war rally for the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq, during which he called for the impeachment of GWB:
</p>
<p>higherlead: I don’t particularly care who Gates or Buffet support, just what the Foundation (infinitely richer and more influential) is doing. I have no doubts it’s doing well.</p>
<p>As for your assertion that such foundations should have some degree of public control because they are tax-free and very influential, I’ll agree just as soon as you propose the same for religious organizations, which are even more influential and equally unaccountable - actually, more unaccountable.</p>
<p>Kluge, your post showed you are either arrogant or a subversive.</p>
<p>The kids here in CC including your own are a selected group so they should not be used as examples. Look at this egotistic rant.
Dont’t tell me it’s only mean to be a hyberbole. I see your character in it quite clearly.</p>
<p>Edvest said:
No, its just incredibly frustrating. Why is your selection of a “southeast asian colleague” whose children took calculus somehow representative of the failure of US education, while Kluge’s report of an equivalent accomplishment arrogant or subversive?</p>
<p>10f42 - The foundations do what the men who created them want them to do including hiring their n’ere do well relatives and heirs. Why should we be giving Bill Gates and Warren Buffet or anyone else else a tax shelter with which to influence public policy? </p>
<p>It gets even more screwed up when the vast resources of these foundations like the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Pew fall in to the hands of small self-perpetuating boards. I don’t actually care what they do with their money as long as I don’t have to support them with tax breaks.</p>
<p>I’ll let your diatribe against organized religion slide and simply point you to the first amendment. The wall of seperation is intended to protect religion from the state not the state from religion. You can go back and read the whole history of the reformation and the wars of religion if you want to know why the founding fathers thought the first amendmentt was so important.</p>
<p>In fact my kids are not unusual for their school - they’re not the most math savvy kids there (by a long shot.) At my kids’ high school, with about 500 kids per class, about 70 to 80 students take AP calculus each year. (Admission to these classes is controlled by the school - you can’t just sign up, you have to complete prerequisites to a satisfactory level.) Math to the minimum level required for high school graduation was probably completed by a quarter of the middle school students in 8th grade. This is a public school district in California - albeit a highly ranked one. Private schools can have a much higher level of advanced math classes. Public schools in less affluent districts generally will have lower numbers of advanced math students. </p>
<p>Now, I’m not sure if America is doing as good a job educating our kids as other countries or not; but the fact is that a significant portion of America’s kids get the same level of math education as the elite from other nations - just not all American kids. But either way, you’re talking about an elite of one kind or another. Here we provide an education with algebra, geometry, trigonometry and perhaps statistics available to the 420 students who don’t take calculus - up to whatever level they’re capable of and interested in completing. In another country those students might not be in high school at all. </p>
<p>Sorry if that sounds “arrogant or subversive.” I thought it was just an observation…</p>
<p>While the conservatives fear America is falling behind in math and science readiness for our future leaders, the liberals said problem solved, it wasn’t there in the first place- here an article worth reading:</p>
<p>“The Next Technological Revolution:
Will the US Lead, or Fall Behind?”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.biophysics.org/pubaffairs/revolution.pdf[/url]”>http://www.biophysics.org/pubaffairs/revolution.pdf</a></p>
<p>Yourworld, The article has nothing to do with whether we are falling behind in math and science but rather the woeful underfunding of basic science research under Bush and every president from the Republican Party. I know and don’t even get me started on this topic. It is the Republican presidencies that are destroying the research infracstructure of this country. You don’t have to take my words for it, just ask any professor in this country who are involved in biophysic research.</p>
<p>Padad, excerpt from the article in <a href=“http://www.biophysics.org/pubaffairs/revolution.pdf[/url][quote]our”>http://www.biophysics.org/pubaffairs/revolution.pdf
</p>
<p>US graduated 70K engineers to India’s 200K, and China’s 500k last year. Are you making the argument we don’t need as many technologists because offshore talents will flock to our shores? All US needs is MBA grads to manage the labor begging to work in the US for the US, no need to really study hard sciences, let other countries do the grunt work? Will it last ? Are you putting blinders on like Edvest1 says ?</p>
<p>higherlead: The first amendment does not mean that religious organizations must be exempt from taxation. </p>
<p>You made a bunch of arguments as to why we should tax foundations (because of their enormous influence over public policy). I point out that the exact same arguments go for religious organizations. You haven’t provided a legitimate reason why the 2 are different. I would actually argue that foundations are less influential, since by and large they carry out their objectives by directly applying their money, rather than attempting to change government policy, as religions actively (and on a far huger scale than foundations) strive to do.</p>
<p>However, aside from the comparison of foundations and religions, why should foundations be taxed because they exert influence on public policy? Tax exemption of charitable gifts is a long-standing policy; why should it be changed? If you want it to be changed, though, it must be applied to all organizations that benefit from tax-exempt giving, not just the foundations whose tax freedom you deplore.</p>
<p>Yourworld. Read on :“Large-scale government-funded basic research in America began very quickly…The results were extraordinary. By 1960, American universities were second to none. Whereas US physicists received only 3 Nobel Prizes from 1900 – 1935, they received 18 from 1935 – 1970, and 50 from 1970 – 2003. The story in chemistry and biology is much the same. In October 1957, Sputnik galvanized the aerospace community, leading to the first man on the moon and ultimately the space station. Following a crash program to develop penicillin during World War II
and 18% per year growth in the NIH budget in real terms from 1950 to 1965, the American pharmaceutical industry –Merck, Pfizer, Lilly, Bristol-Myers – underwent rapid growth and profitability [9], becoming second-to-none in the world. Science and technology became drivers of the US economy, through innovations such as the transistor, the integrated circuit, the laser, the liquid crystal display, the computer, pharmaceuticals, modern telecommunications, satellites, the internet, biotechnology and – now on the horizon – nanotechnology. In short, basic research has paid off on a large scale for America”</p>
<p>Why are you being selective in your reading. You are the blind fool. Ask yourself what has happened to basic science funding whenever a republican government is in power? Plot NSF funding in years, you will easily see that every down trend comes with a republican government. furthermore, such disruption is the cause of why so few Americans want to go into science. </p>
<p>You are the one that puts the blinder on. What an absolute fool.</p>