And there is no place for discrimination in education.
I know it exists in public schools to an extent too. Being jaded by past
experiences with bad public schools doesn't mean the public education
system is bad all together.
--
Bill Wheatley
Senior Database Developer
eDiets.com, Inc.
(OTCBB: EDET)
3801 W. Hillsboro Blvd.
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
V: (954) 360-9022 ext. 159
F: (954) 360-9095
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W: <http://www.ediets.com/> www.ediets.com
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:26 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re:More Breaking News
Quality education should be available, but not run by government, imho.
Charter schools are a step in the right direction.
Dana
>Quality education should be freely available to everyone - regardless
of
>socio-economic, ethnic, or other conditions. Do you really think that
>privatizing all schools would result in a larger percentage of the
poplation
>receiving a better education? That's interesting. I'd think it makes
more
>sense to raise the quality of public schools. People who can afford
good
>schools will go to them regardless of whether there are public schools.
>I've always felt that without putting a huge strain on the govt.,
having
>nothing but privatized schools would result in a wider gap between the
well
>educated and the poorly educated. Am I mistaken?
>
>~Simon
>
>Simon Horwith
>CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
>Member of Team Macromedia
>Macromedia Certified Instructor
>Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
>Certified Flash MX Developer
>CFDJList - List Administrator
>http://www.how2cf.com/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 January 2004 15:21
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>
>
> I'm a contractor. I took a tech position at fair market value. I do
not
> work FOR the government.
>
>
> That being said, the department of state is the oldest department in
the
> executive branch and almost the only one mentioned in the
constitution.
> International affairs dictate the need for an organization that
provides
>for
> communication, direct and indirect, with foreign countries.
Additionally
>I
> provide security and intelligence analysis for U.S. Citizens
operating
> abroad. Diplomatic Security is also the responsible law enforcement
> organization for visa and passport fraud (some of this has been eaten
up
>by
> DHS). The department of State is not the defense department or the
CIA or
> the FBI. We are here for a constitutionally mandated reason.
>
>
> Also don't get me wrong, I didn't say I am against all taxes. I know
we
> need taxes for defense and law enforcement. Now roads, education and
other
> services should all be handled at a state level, or as in the case of
the
> postal service, privately. In many cases I think we should move much
more
> aggressively towards toll roads supported by those that actually use
them,
> education that PARENTS want for their children, and by lowering the
tax
> burden n parents I can assure you that parents are not going to
choose the
> garbage schools that we have now. Why not privatize all schools?
>
>
> While I know that government research, mainly defense based, is in
large
> part responsible for great technological advances, this is not
necessarily
> always the case. Xerox, IBM and Microsoft, all private companies,
had a
>lot
> to do with getting us where we are today. A few generations ago it
would
> have been Ford, GM and Dodge. Before that the railroads. Private
>industry
> is and always will be where the greatest and most powerful innovation
>comes
> from.
>
>
> Just so you know, I have my own ethical questions about where I work
and
> what I do. I am a sellout, and I know it. I have kids, and I do
what I
> need to do to give them the best life they can have. I didn't need a
>knife,
> a gun or a stick to do it. I did it with my mind. I have worked in
the
> private sector, actually starting to make something of a name for
myself
> before deciding to go the "professional" route.
>
>
> Matt were you in a socialist position in the marines? No. It was a
>service
> position. It's different and you know it is.
>
> --
> Timothy Heald
> Web Portfolio Manager
> Overseas Security Advisory Council
> U.S. Department of State
> 571.345.2319
>
> The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S.
> Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have
these
> opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This
>is
> unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:05 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: More Breaking News
>
> Whoa, now Tim. You work for the US Government - that's a job
provided for
> society's benefit, making that a socialist position. Why should I
pay for
> your job?
>
> The whole point is that we make some sacrifices in order to acheive a
>safer,
> healthier society. Without taxes, we would have no roads, no public
> education, no postal service. Don't think that the private sector
would
> take over these things, because people just don't care that much
about
>each
> other on a personal basis to make society better without a huge
personal
> benefit.
>
> WIthout supporting the public, you and I would not be sitting here in
forn
> of computers typing our views - we'd both be living in 1850.
>
> - Matt Small
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Heald, Tim
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:44 AM
> Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>
> Yeah god forbid we expect people to work harder. To study on their
own
> time
> to better themselves.
>
> People rise to the level of their abilities. Why is it my burden
to
> support
> them in a manner better than they can provide for themselves?
>
> --
> Timothy Heald
> Web Portfolio Manager
> Overseas Security Advisory Council
> U.S. Department of State
> 571.345.2319
>
> The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S.
> Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have
these
> opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This
> is
> unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:42 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: More Breaking News
>
> Exactly. The overall cost to the country of an even poorer poor is
worse
> than the minor burden of an artificially manipulated standard of
living.
>
> Besides increases in unemployment, theft, and violent crime, there
is
>also
> an associated decrease in access to base medical care which leads
to
>more
> sickness and the spread of communicable diseases. With a shortened
life
> expectancy, people tend to try and have more children in order for
their
> family to survive which puts an even greater burden on the country.
>
> And besides, if people aren't making as much money who's going to
buy
>all
> the SUVs and HDTVs?
>
> -Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Horwith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:24 AM
> Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>
> > but the idea behind Minimum wage is that it guarantees a standard
of
> living
> > that, though still at or near poverty level, does help to
guarantee
> certain
> > basic living standards. Even then, the minimum wage tends not
to
> keep-up
> > with the rise in inflation. That said, if a higher inflation
rate is
> the
> > price we must pay in order to guarantee legal workers a chance at
a
> decent
> > life, so be it.
> >
> > ~Simon
> >
> > Simon Horwith
> > CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
> > Member of Team Macromedia
> > Macromedia Certified Instructor
> > Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> > Certified Flash MX Developer
> > CFDJList - List Administrator
> > http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/>
> <http://www.how2cf.com/>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 07 January 2004 14:02
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: More Breaking News
> >
> >
> > I think two main things have led us through inflation and
rising
> costs.
> >
> >
> > 1. Coming off of the gold standard, thanx Nixon.
> >
> >
> > 2. Minimum wage.
> >
> >
> > Why in a free market economy should the government dictate what
one
> side
> > of
> > an open trade should receive? If a person is willing to work
for
>next
> to
> > nothing, should they not be able to? Also, to return to a
place
>where
> we
> > can compete in a world economy as not just a service provider,
but
>an
> > industrial base, we need low pay low skill employees. As long
as
>law
> > requires us to meet and exceed basic standards we cannot do so.
> >
> >
> > The only other answer would be to severely penalize countries
and
> > companies
> > that don't meet the same requirements that we impose
internally.
> >
> >
> > We start by exactly matching tariffs imposed by other nations
>against
> our
> > goods. Add additional tariffs to nations that don't afford
their
> > employees
> > the same minimum standing of living, add even more for nations
that
> don't
> > have basic human rights.
> >
> >
> > It would be painful, maybe even start a war or two, but I think
it
> would
> > be
> > worth it in the long run.
> >
> > --
> > Timothy Heald
> > Web Portfolio Manager
> > Overseas Security Advisory Council
> > U.S. Department of State
> > 571.345.2319
> >
> > The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of
the
> U.S.
> > Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor
have
>these
> > opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations.
This
> > is
> > unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:58 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: More Breaking News
> >
> > Hey - I like cutting my own lawn.
> >
> > I'm no economist, bu i wouldn't hold your breath on seeing
minimum
> wage
> go
> > away. Quite honestly, as far as I know it shouldn't go away.
The
> goal
> > shouldn't be to do away with it so that companies can hire
Americans
> for
> > as
> > cheap as they can get illegal labor, but to legalize all of the
>labor
> to
> > the
> > extent that it all falls under minimum wage law. That way
there'd
>be
> no
> > benefit to hiring an illegal labourer as opposed to a legal one
> (they'd
> > cost
> > the same). Without minimum wage, what would protect the
workforce -
> > especially unskilled and manual labour? Of course, this would
most
> likely
> > result in even more work being outsourced to countries like
India...
> any
> > work that can be, anyway.
> >
> > ~Simon
> >
> > Simon Horwith
> > CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
> > Member of Team Macromedia
> > Macromedia Certified Instructor
> > Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> > Certified Flash MX Developer
> > CFDJList - List Administrator
> > http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/>
> <http://www.how2cf.com/>
> <http://www.how2cf.com/>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 07 January 2004 13:36
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: More Breaking News
> >
> > >We have 10.5 million illegal workers in the United States
right
> now,"
> > said
> > US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
> >
> > >"If they went home, we'd have to shut down the country."
> >
> > Hehe, or we'd just have to learn how to cut our own lawn
again.
>:)
> >
> > Immigration is probably where I am furthest from libertarian.
At
> this
> > point
> > I am almost isolationist. I would much rather see work-fare
> programs
> > that
> > get people off the rolls of welfare and into low and no skill
>jobs.
> > Really
> > if we could do away with the minimum wage and make it so that
>these
> > companies that hire illegals because they can't afford
Americans,
> can
> > again,
> > it would be good for us all.
> >
> > Also isn't this going to encourage MORE illegal immigration,
as
> people
> > will
> > see the "success stories" of people who got legal
recognition.
>Plus
> the
> > way
> > many state governments are set up, don't immigrants, even
> non-citizens,
> > then
> > become eligible for social programs, like welfare and medical
> benefits?
> >
> > Yeah I can't see how any of this is a good idea.
> >
> > --
> > Timothy Heald
> > Web Portfolio Manager
> > Overseas Security Advisory Council
> > U.S. Department of State
> > 571.345.2319
> >
> > The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those
of
>the
> U.S.
> > Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor
have
> these
> > opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations.
This
> > is
> > unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erika L Walker-Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:27 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: More Breaking News
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Erika
> > _____
> > _____
> >
> >
> _____
> _____
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
