The Confederate Flag

[Kaodi]

The Vikings discovered North America in 986 or earlier, and the indigenous peoples of the Americas do not give a damn about who "discovered" North America anyway. This Cabot/Cartier/Columbus stuff is centuries and millennia off the mark.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Excellent point!

 

[Umbran]

On that one I can give an answer. Controlling education help Québécois preserve their culture. It let us control the language in which class was given. That certainly helps prevent assimilation.

It also means we know the correct history of this land. It was discoverd by Jacques Cartier in 1534, not by John Cabot. Did you know John Cabot isn't even his real name and that he was a drunk?

Yeah, because people who want to keep culture "pure" can always be trusted to give the "correct" history.

 

[Coredump]

What particular laws are in place are not the issue- that gets sorted out via voting. The issue- prompted by my friends' expressed concerns- is that the laws they know and follow scrupulously here can get them jail time and fines if they cross a state border. Remember, ignorance of the law is no defense, nor is being from somewhere else.

Thats great in theory... until the new 'national' law follows the New Jersey rules and they have to give up all of their, now illegal, guns. And even if it follows a less harsh set of laws, it means all of those Vermont folks (and 3-4 other states) are now breaking the law.
Why should the people of Vermont have to change their laws, just because the people in DC don't like those laws?
What makes you think the people in DC are better able to create laws for Vermont, *and* New Jersey, *and* texas, *and* California *and* Ohio, etc... better than the people living in those states? Do you really think that the needs of people in Montana are the same as the people in Rhode Island?
Granted, it makes is more difficult for those often crossing state lines, and there should be some leniency for such; but those are a very small minority compared to the number of people effected by forcing their state to change their laws to some 'national' law.

As for the Constitutional violation (just playing devil's advocate here), the states are limiting a fundamental right the Constitution says "shall not be abridged." Nevermind the vague-ish part at the beginning about the right being linked to "militia", that is pretty clear language.

Meeting constitutional muster is a completely different issue... and one that is being (slowly) addressed. But beyond that, there is still a very wide set of options for laws. I see no reason to give a small group of people in DC the power over everyone, when a group closer to home can be more responsive to local concerns.

1) State licensing of healthcare professionals allows quacks (and worse) to lose a license in one state and go to another. It's one of the reasons why you typically find them having been stripped of a license in multiple states before they finally serve jail time. And most malpractice is caused by repeat offenders, not the average doctor or nurse. But malpractice rates are calculated (in part) on national averages. IOW, no matter where a quack works, he's affecting your doctor's insurance rates, and thus, the cost you pay.

That is easily handled by better communication between the states. But you are again looking at a very small minority of cases and wanting to effect the vast majority to 'fix' the problem.
There are plenty of national laws/programs/etc that are lousy at tracking anything, and allow for repeat offenders. You are assuming that nationalizing it would make it better... but there is no proof of that. How is that 'no fly list' working out?
Again, facilitating communication would solve the problem *much* better than forcing every state to accept what a few people in DC decide is 'best for everybody'.

1a) State licensing costs money for each state your doctor is licensed in, which in turn costs you money. If he practices medicine in a state in which he isn't licensed, he opens himself up for liability. In contrast, military physicians need only be licensed in a single state, and operate under the authority of their branch anywhere there exists US military base, even in a foreign land. A single federal license saves them money, which saves you money.

Virginia costs 250-300 to get a license. That is *not* going to raise anyone's prices. And the vast majority of doctors only practice in one state..... a very few might work in two. But the 'costs' are just not the issue.
And when have you ever seen the Feds take over anything, and reduce costs...??

(My father just recently gave up his Louisiana license a few years ago because most of the family is now here in Texas.)

Yep, and saved himself a whopping $332. I just don't see his patients getting a big discount from that...

In addition, they need not take the time to pass each state's particular requirements, which can be arbitrary. A cousin of mine is an MD married to a DDS. Her husband was licensed in another state when they moved to Texas. The Texas dental boards have a rule that says an applicant can be denied at any stage of the approval process, with no reason given.

He was in the final 5 minutes of the practical- the last stage of the process- when he was failed and was told to stop.

(Fact: Texas passes almost no out of state DDS license applicants their first time through the boards.)

This is blatant protectionism that costs DDS applicants money, which costs you money, and keeps qualified healthcare professionals out of the market for no good reason.

Licensing is often used as a 'protection' racket for those already in the industry. This becomes no less true if you nationalize it. Do you really think the Fed govt is less prone to lobbyists getting restrictions in place than the state govts are? Have you heard about the Raisin cartel??

2) cosmetic professionals of all kinds may wind up causing their clients to bleed, either accidentally- a nick while shaving or giving a manicure- or as part of a procedure- Botox injection, tattooing, piercing, etc. But guess what? There are no national standards for how to handle these situations safely, nor are there national standards on the sterilization of equipment or environs.

Do you think that is the kind of thing that should vary from state to state?

Yes. Very much so. Granted I expect most states to have very similar concerns with safety..... but they should have the right to make the laws that they deem necessary, and not the laws that someone 1500 miles away deems necessary.
There is a *big* difference between someone giving botox injections, and someone wanting to braid hair on the weekend. But in some places they both need 1500 hours of 'instruction' and pay a license in order to try and make a living. Just because one state is that stupid, does not mean every state has to be that stupid. And doesn't mean I want to give the Fed govt the power to force every state to be that stupid.

I'm thinking less of the grandiose stuff and more of the basics: shouldn't there be a general target for how much and what math a 5th grader knows? Shouldn't each kid have the same grounding in math & science? It isn't like that stuff changes depending on your longitude, latitude and elevation relative to sea level.

Few problems with that. 1) There is a lot of disagreement on the best times to teach a certain topic, or level of understanding. 2) *How* you teach that is the biggest issue. Look at the problems Common Core has created. Even if you like their overall objectives, it was the process and resulting curriculum that people have a problem with. But they were able to accept or reject it at a *state* level, if the Feds had the first, final, and only say....

As for the book? Normally, I wouldn't bother, but it made national news.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-11-10/news/9104110179_1_books-korean-war-adoption

The reason it did is because states like California, Texas and New York are so populous that their sheer size skews the schoolbook market. If one of the big states isn't buying your textbook, it's probably not getting bought by any public schools.

Wow.... what a way to *completely* misrepresent an issue. It was the *Texas Board* that stopped the use of the book *because* of those errors. You try and portray it as a Texan conspiracy... you are way way off base.

It also matters because of the ripple effect in education. You teach enough kids that we won the Korean War by dropping A-bombs and similar misinformation, you then have a terribly misinformed college/job applicants. That doesn't just affect us internally, that affects how Americans do internationally.

Yes.. lets look at this. Texas and California have decided that they do not want to allow local control, and thus they have decided that the *state govt* will determine what every child in every district will use as a textbook. Thus all of those millions of children are under the sway of a handful of Board members in each state.
Yet, you think that is such a great idea, that you want the entire nation's children to have their books determined by handful of people in DC.

How do you not see that it is the very existence of this top-down one-size-fits-all We-know-best-for-everyone process is the precise cause of the problems you are trying to 'fix' by making it even more top-down we-know-best...

And lest you think that the mistakes in Texas' textbooks are all accidental...well, they're clearly not:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rate-biased-and-politicized-new-report-finds/

Congratulations... you found an article based on a left wing groups complaints. There are also right wing groups that have problems with it (but for different reasons)
But *none* of these support explicit factual errors like the Bomb/Korea one from above. You have again misrepresented your case.

But you have highlighted *my* point very well... the more you centralize any process, the *easier* it becomes for a group to influence the outcome. In most states, you have to convince 6-10 people of what should be in a textbook, and that effects a few hundred or couple thousand students. In Texas and Cali you have to convince 6-10 people to effect millions of students. For your national system, you would have to convince 6-10 in order to effect every single child in the nation.....
What if a person you don't like is Pres, and fills the board with people you don't like.... ??



Remember, Even if we agree on what the 'facts' are... *which* ones get presented makes a huge difference. And there is no guarantee that we can even agree on what the facts are.

 

[Umbran]

Virginia costs 250-300 to get a license. That is *not* going to raise anyone's prices. And the vast majority of doctors only practice in one state..... a very few might work in two. But the 'costs' are just not the issue.
And when have you ever seen the Feds take over anything, and reduce costs...??

It isn't that simple.

My wife is a veterinarian. She is licensed to practice in two states. She needs a separate medical license for each state. She needs a separate federal Drug Enforcement Agency license for each state (yes, that is a Federal license, but she needs one for each state - Federal level does *not* mean you only need one). She also needs a State-level drug license for each state. She also has to fulfill separate continuing education requirements for each state - some of her CE overlaps, but other bits she has to satisfy separately to meet requirements.

By law, if she herself dispenses drugs in a state (as opposed to the clinic she is working for dispensing them) she has to keep a *separate* inventory for that state - separate bottles, separate drug safes to lock them up, separate logs for audit.

It is at a point where she's expecting to drop her licenses in one state, because is isn't economically worth it.

 

[Umbran]

And when have you ever seen the Feds take over anything, and reduce costs...??

Medicare/Medicaid, if I recall correctly, reduces the overall cost of care as compared to all the individuals using private medical insurance.
.

Granted I expect most states to have very similar concerns with safety..... but they should have the right to make the laws that they deem necessary, and not the laws that someone 1500 miles away deems necessary.

And, if the thing that is regulated generally stays in the state in question, that makes perfect sense. But, when crossing state lines is common, then federal-level regulation makes sense. Guns have a very big habit of crossing State lines, and so some level of Federal control makes sense.

Note that havign some Federal control does *not* mean there is also no State control - drug enforcement is a good example here. There are Federal drug laws, *and* State drug laws.

 

[Kramodlog]

Yeah, because people who want to keep culture "pure" can always be trusted to give the "correct" history.

Who said anything about cultural purity?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thats great in theory... until the new 'national' law follows the New Jersey rules and they have to give up all of their, now illegal, guns. And even if it follows a less harsh set of laws, it means all of those Vermont folks (and 3-4 other states) are now breaking the law.
Why should the people of Vermont have to change their laws, just because the people in DC don't like those laws?
What makes you think the people in DC are better able to create laws for Vermont, *and* New Jersey, *and* texas, *and* California *and* Ohio, etc... better than the people living in those states? Do you really think that the needs of people in Montana are the same as the people in Rhode Island?
Granted, it makes is more difficult for those often crossing state lines, and there should be some leniency for such; but those are a very small minority compared to the number of people effected by forcing their state to change their laws to some 'national' law.

That's a bit of a straw man: there is no set of laws (in any field) that will make EVERYONE happy. I'm sure some of my friends would be even happier in Arizona than they are right now here in Texas, at least in regards to gun ownership laws. And it isn't as if it is only gun owners whose rights matter- those who don't own them have a say as well.

So, while a given group of gun owners may not care for the DETAILS of a national legal gun regime, the mere fact of having national consistency saves them training costs, licensing, storage costs and potential legal fees- and any ancillary time/work issues associated with having to defend a potential criminal violation- in comparison to the checkerboard we have now.

Meeting constitutional muster is a completely different issue... and one that is being (slowly) addressed. But beyond that, there is still a very wide set of options for laws. I see no reason to give a small group of people in DC the power over everyone, when a group closer to home can be more responsive to local concerns.

The Constitution uses crystal clear language: that right "shall not be abridged". Under the Constitutional Supremacy doctrine, Federal laws trump State. It is an unanswered legal question as to why States are even permitted to require a simple license to own a gun when that alone restricts gun ownership.

That is easily handled by better communication between the states. But you are again looking at a very small minority of cases and wanting to effect the vast majority to 'fix' the problem.

While it is improving, communication isn't perfect, and bad actors still license shop. Yes, it is a minority of cases, but you are missing the point: the vast majority- up to 80% by some measures- of issues in malpractice are caused by that minority.

Virginia costs 250-300 to get a license. That is *not* going to raise anyone's prices. And the vast majority of doctors only practice in one state..... a very few might work in two. But the 'costs' are just not the issue.

Beyond the license fee, there will also commonly be an occupation tax. There are also annual training courses and their fees to meet each state's licensure requirements. Each state also has differing malpractice insurance requirements. This all adds up to thousands of dollars in fees...plus the time off from work when he has to attend those training classes. It adds up.

What also adds up is the fees you pay for differing standards in healthcare coverage- the flipside of this issue. A service or medication I get for a nominal copay in Texas may not be covered at all in another state.

And yes, docs limited in practice area IS a real economic cost. Protectionism reduces competition, and that is an increase in economic inefficiency. That raises costs, Econ 101.

And when have you ever seen the Feds take over anything, and reduce costs...??

Many government "welfare" programs have operational cost percentages much lower than private charities doing the same job, meaning more $$$ goes to the people who need them.

As for Govt vs private efficiency:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...ral-government-should-handle-disaster-relief/

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/30/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20140330

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-70-percent-food-stamp-fundin/

The last one has an interesting bit about how conservatives often tout that government welfare expenditures have 70% of their money absorbed in administration fees- far more than the average for the better private charities. The problem is, that simply isn't true. Michael Tanner, the author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society,- the source of the 70% figure- says it is a misuse of his report to claim that much is all overhead. Instead, he explicitly notes that the majority of that money is distributed directly to those providing services to the poor, instead of to the poor who would then have to pay the providers. IOW, the payments are saving money by removing a transaction from the equation.

Actual costs consumed by administration? 5% or less for most federal welfare programs. SNAP is sitting at 0.1%. The best run private charities operate in a sweet spot around 10.2% administration costs and can't even sniff sub-1% administration costs.

Yep, and saved himself a whopping $332. I just don't see his patients getting a big discount from that...

Economic costs beyond the mere license fee addressed above.

Licensing is often used as a 'protection' racket for those already in the industry. This becomes no less true if you nationalize it.

It most certainly does: if there is one Federal medical license, once you have it, you're good to go anywhere and practice medicine. As it stands with States controlling things, perfectly competent licensed healthcare professionals are excluded from practice in most of the USA.

(Imagine what it would be like if we treated drivers licenses the same way...)

Yes. Very much so. Granted I expect most states to have very similar concerns with safety..... but they should have the right to make the laws that they deem necessary, and not the laws that someone 1500 miles away deems necessary.
There is a *big* difference between someone giving botox injections, and someone wanting to braid hair on the weekend. But in some places they both need 1500 hours of 'instruction' and pay a license in order to try and make a living. Just because one state is that stupid, does not mean every state has to be that stupid. And doesn't mean I want to give the Fed govt the power to force every state to be that stupid.

Well, let's start off by noting your expectation would be incorrect. Just looking at tattoo parlor licensure, some states do not require licensing at all, and do not monitor their sterilization practices, or what chemicals can be used for inks.

http://www.aaatattoodirectory.com/tattoo_regulations.htm

That means it is a crap shoot whether a given parlor in that area gives a damn about transmission of Hepatitis, HIV, and other blood borne pathogens or infections. That means in some states, someone could be giving tattoos including dyes that are toxic to humans.

IOW, the caveat emptor approach has serious ramifications for public health everywhere, not just for the persons getting sketchy tats.

Few problems with that. 1) There is a lot of disagreement on the best times to teach a certain topic, or level of understanding. 2) *How* you teach that is the biggest issue. Look at the problems Common Core has created. Even if you like their overall objectives, it was the process and resulting curriculum that people have a problem with. But they were able to accept or reject it at a *state* level, if the Feds had the first, final, and only say....

As you note, Common Core isn't a federal program. But the problems with it seem to be not in the educational standards being promoted, but in how best to measure the students' progress versus the benchmarks.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-biggest-problem-with-common-core-2014-7

In some places, it has worked very well. Others, not so much. Standardizing Common Core curricula and administration towards the better end of the scale would lead to better results.

(As I noted previously, the one great thing about States rights is the ability to test out things in the real world without going national first.)

Wow.... what a way to *completely* misrepresent an issue. It was the *Texas Board* that stopped the use of the book *because* of those errors. You try and portray it as a Texan conspiracy... you are way way off base.

Actually, the books were initially approved by the Texas school board, and only the actions of an independent review organization run by private citizens- Mel & Norma Gabler- got the board to reconsider.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/11/20/12text.h11.html
https://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/2247-dont-bother-me-with-facts

(For the record, they ALSO fought against books that taught evolution or mentioned religions other than Christianity.)

Yes.. lets look at this. Texas and California have decided that they do not want to allow local control, and thus they have decided that the *state govt* will determine what every child in every district will use as a textbook. Thus all of those millions of children are under the sway of a handful of Board members in each state.
Yet, you think that is such a great idea, that you want the entire nation's children to have their books determined by handful of people in DC.

How do you not see that it is the very existence of this top-down one-size-fits-all We-know-best-for-everyone process is the precise cause of the problems you are trying to 'fix' by making it even more top-down we-know-best...

Because it isn't the cause. The cause- well, one major cause- is politicization of a process that shouldn't be politicized. Algebra doesn't care if you are Democrat or Republican. Verifiable historical facts do not vary based on whether your great great grandfather fought for the North or South in the 1860s.

And yet, because school boards are VERY politicized, so, increasingly, are our books and curricula. As I pointed out in another thread here, there are schools in the South teaching intelligent design in biology, and at least one school fabricating quotes from past presidents to support a strong linkage between Christianity and our government.

Congratulations... you found an article based on a left wing groups complaints. There are also right wing groups that have problems with it (but for different reasons)
But *none* of these support explicit factual errors like the Bomb/Korea one from above. You have again misrepresented your case.

But you have highlighted *my* point very well... the more you centralize any process, the *easier* it becomes for a group to influence the outcome. In most states, you have to convince 6-10 people of what should be in a textbook, and that effects a few hundred or couple thousand students. In Texas and Cali you have to convince 6-10 people to effect millions of students. For your national system, you would have to convince 6-10 in order to effect every single child in the nation.....

With only one board to monitor, as opposed to Texas, California, New York and a few others, watchdogs can make better use of their resources. Focusing on the strengths or weaknesses of the decision-making of a single group- regardless of the number of members- is more efficient than monitoring a dozen or so.

What if a person you don't like is Pres, and fills the board with people you don't like.... ??

There are relatively few offices in the executive branch directly filled by the President. He simply doesn't have the authority. And even for offices a president does appoint, many are not fireable by the president, either by law or tradition, and those jobs only get new appointments when the current holder steps down or is removed via other means. That is why you will frequently see even top administrators serve for decades, even as Presidents come and go.

There is no reason to think Federal book agencies or medical boards would be any different.

Remember, Even if we agree on what the 'facts' are... *which* ones get presented makes a huge difference. And there is no guarantee that we can even agree on what the facts are.

I live in eternal hope that those holding administrative jobs and who need not be experts in a given field would at least listen to those who are.

Admittedly, there is a large segment of the population that doesn't do that, but I still hope.

 

[Umbran]

Who said anything about cultural purity?

You did. "Not assimilating", by definition, is not mixing, which is maintaining purity.

 

[Kramodlog]

You did. "Not assimilating", by definition, is not mixing, which is maintaining purity.

Reality isn't rheoric, definition and certainly isn't dichotomous. "Purity", as you say, isn't the only way to resist cultural assimilation.