Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wow! That's an excellent article.I like that how he mentioned sociology and it's relation to history.
I agree; here is something a teacher I work with uses with his classes. What say you all?
I like this and have printed it out. Did that teacher write this? If so, very good job.
--Learning by inquiry-- ... this definition is based on the ancient Greek word historia...I like this definition because it means that we learn by questioning, a very important concept for students of allsubjects. Remember, it is okay to question things...
This is good, and as a 'beginner' (OK, old beginner) I couldn't agree more. The only way to learn is to stay curious.
I always liked Family Circus. Especially when the cartoonist went on “vacation” and he'd use one of his kid characters as a fill in. 🙂
Wow! That's an excellent article.
A study of History is important, because a study of History allows us to learn about different opinions and perspectives given in by writers and intellectuals (from various backgrounds) on the same leader and/or stuff related to the past. A well balanced study of History that incorporates all the different points of views, opinions and perspectives through a wide range of reading, learning, understanding and debate would surely help in developing secularist values on a social level.
It builds into individuals the ability to assess evidence and the ability to assess conflicting perspectives.
I like that how he mentioned sociology and it's relation to history.
Think about the Fred Phelps deal in the U.S. and multiply it times 100...then it would be much harder to drown out the din.
That's a brilliant analogy.As far as radicals being much louder than moderates, I agree, but I'd be taking a guess here that the moderates are in the majority.
I still don't really see moderate Muslims "joining the fight". If this were the case you'd see more of a crackdown on fringe elements. I did read that story a few days ago about Al Qaeda in Iraq turning other members in because of gruesome brutality. It's a good sign but much more needs to be done on a global scale.
Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, UAE, Somalia, Ethiopia? They're fighting it and/or helping us fight it and not allowing the radicals any breathing room.
The world's oil supply and strategic waterways all will be controlled by radical Muslim elements if nothing is done to moderate the movement away from its rampant bellicosity. To date, only the United States, Great Britain, and tiny Israel have any serious intentions of combatting the spread of this hate inspired contagion.
Is it still only those mentioned combatting the spread of radical Islam or have the moderate Muslim nations now joined in this fight? (not that they ever weren't in it to begin with)and to add:Has Israel's behavior (withholding money and taking prisoners) helped or added to the tensions and troubles of the Palestinians? Has Israel's past refusal to negotiate with Hamas helped any or has it put more of a wedge between Israel and the Arab world? Has our (the US) refusal to negotiate harmed any 'street cred' we may have among the Arabs? What if we helped the Palestinians as much as we help the Iraqis? Would doing this help defeat Al Qaeda and Hezbollah? (they will view us as liberators instead of them)
It is illegal to display Nazi symbols in public in Germany, although filmmakers and theatrical companies are exempted.
Interesting. I wonder if the Germans used the "I hateTom Cruise" excuse (not that I blame them for that ;D) as just an excuse to prevent the filming of a movie with Nazi symbols.
PS: If we want to produce more ethanol corn is far less efficient than (at least one) native grass... work smarter not harder!
I think just sticking with oil is the smart choice (not that I'm being influenced by my Exxon and BP stock or anything ::))
Perhaps I'm looking at this incorrectly? I'm thinking corn production will increase, but this increase will go to the energy demands instead of food, so food prices will become high. You need to grow an awful lot of acreage to meet energy demands, so wouldn't that cut in to other farm products and create a shortage?
The real key is not to work against the natural flow of the free market economy but to implement policies which mimic it. One way for the government to do this is by providing incentives for people and/or corporations to develop new technologies which solve a problem without contributing to the problem. When people know they'll get tax breaks by buying certain kinds of cars, or low-consumption monitors, or whatever, demand will grow for that kind of technology. As this happens it will enrich companies which provide this but will also attract more companies to develop this technology. As this happens prices will come down, more customers will buy into this, and the underlying problem will be averted.
I agree with this 100%. If they are not going to use the free market, this isn't goingto work. Someone will end up paying for it...most likely the poor.What I have problems with is MAKING someone do this,which seems to be the direction we are going. If I want my SUV, then so be it. If gas prices go real high, or if I can get a tax break by buying a Corolla, then that's my choice. I just don't want to be forced to choose or penalized because of that choice. I fear the penalties are coming. (Oh, Mr. skiguy, you used more than the allotted amount of electricity this month, therefore you have to pay a carbon offset fee.)
As far as your Ethiopian farmer is concerned - if it's subsidized corn we're talking about (not a good idea) you'll get more people wanting to plant it since they know they'll get a set price for it. In the free market you don't have a finite supply; rather as something increases in demand supply will increase because more people will want to capture the growing profits from this. With corn this should work because more can be planted; with something like oil it's a bit harder due to the high barriers for companies to enter the field.
My problem with this, corn price affects all food. We may be able to lower our oil consumption by price increases, but not our food consumption. People may be able to drive less, but they can't eat less. If as you say, more farmers want to grow corn for ethanol, wouldn't that decrease the food supply?
The real key is not to work against the natural flow of the free market economy but to implement policies which mimic it. One way for the government to do this is by providing incentives for people and/or corporations to develop new technologies which solve a problem without contributing to the problem. When people know they'll get tax breaks by buying certain kinds of cars, or low-consumption monitors, or whatever, demand will grow for that kind of technology. As this happens it will enrich companies which provide this but will also attract more companies to develop this technology. As this happens prices will come down, more customers will buy into this, and the underlying problem will be averted.
I agree with this 100%. If they are not going to use the free market, this isn't goingto work. Someone will end up paying for it...most likely the poor.What I have problems with is MAKING someone do this,which seems to be the direction we are going. If I want my SUV, then so be it. If gas prices go real high, or if I can get a tax break by buying a Corolla, then that's my choice. I just don't want to be forced to choose or penalized because of that choice (I fear the penalties are coming)
As far as your Ethiopian farmer is concerned - if it's subsidized corn we're talking about (not a good idea) you'll get more people wanting to plant it since they know they'll get a set price for it. In the free market you don't have a finite supply; rather as something increases in demand supply will increase because more people will want to capture the growing profits from this. With corn this should work because more can be planted; with something like oil it's a bit harder due to the high barriers for companies to enter the field.
My problem with this, corn price affects all food. We may be able to lower our oil consumption by price increases, but not our food consumption. People may be able to drive less, but they can't eat less. If as you say, more farmers want to grow corn for ethanol, wouldn't that decrease the food supply?
