|
berzerker posted:It's bizarre to me, as a historian, to see anyone refer to Reconstruction and Jim Crow as "missing" years. They ARE a standard part of American history courses. Few high school courses go into enormous detail on any aspect of US history, and fewer still get past WWII due to time reasons, but that doesn't make a conspiracy to hide post-WWII history from students. (Cue 20 pages of people with anecdotes about how well or poorly taught it was in their specific schools) I don't think there is a conspiracy or anything but I do think the period gets insufficient attention paid to it given the enormous impact it has had on present day America. It is also really hard to drill into a teenage student's mind just how godawful it was to be black during that time period, in much the same way that people have difficulty getting a true grip of other atrocities in human history. You just don't want to think that people are capable of such horror. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Any text from the patent reform bill? I'm fairly sure it was nearly entirely targeted at Non Practicing Entities, including fee shifting to make NPEs responsible for defendant's fees if the NPE loses, limits on discovery, "real party of interest" rules to prevent the current tactic of filing lawsuits using empty shell companies (and helping get better fee recovery), and stricter requirements for NPEs to actually identify how they believe their patent is being violated. Also longer post-grant review window filing times, barring NPEs from using the International Trade Commission import injunction process, and perhaps additional post-grant review for older patents. The real party of interest rule combined with fee shifting could completely gently caress over trolling firms because right now if they lose they just dissolve up whatever shell company they spun off for the purpose suing, and the limits on discovery and ITC ban would significantly defang their ability to harass and threaten companies.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
berzerker posted:It's bizarre to me, as a historian, to see anyone refer to Reconstruction and Jim Crow as "missing" years. They ARE a standard part of American history courses. Few high school courses go into enormous detail on any aspect of US history, and fewer still get past WWII due to time reasons, but that doesn't make a conspiracy to hide post-WWII history from students. (Cue 20 pages of people with anecdotes about how well or poorly taught it was in their specific schools) I think there's probably less enthusiasm to talk about post-WWII stuff in History class even if you have time because it's WAY more controversial. Obviously Bush 43 and Obama can't be covered in an objective way right now, and we're still fighting about Reagan & Clinton and their impacts and legacies. Heck, half of the stuff our parties fight about traces back to LBJ's Great Society programs and whether to maintain them or partially roll them back. Shifty Pony posted:I don't think there is a conspiracy or anything but I do think the period gets insufficient attention paid to it given the enormous impact it has had on present day America. It is also really hard to drill into a teenage student's mind just how godawful it was to be black during that time period, in much the same way that people have difficulty getting a true grip of other atrocities in human history. You just don't want to think that people are capable of such horror. Plus there are sensitivity limits on what teachers can talk about - white slaveowners regularly raping their slaves isn't something you can easily go over even in a 10th grade class without having certain types of folks breathing down your neck in areas where parents unironically opt their kids out of abstinence-only sex ed for being too salacious. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:This would have belonged in the last thread, but I'm glad that my congressional district was not fired up and ready for Ro. I know I did my part. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:I think there's probably less enthusiasm to talk about post-WWII stuff in History class even if you have time because it's WAY more controversial. Obviously Bush 43 and Obama can't be covered in an objective way right now, and we're still fighting about Reagan & Clinton and their impacts and legacies. Heck, half of the stuff our parties fight about traces back to LBJ's Great Society programs and whether to maintain them or partially roll them back. Nah, this might've been true a decade or two ago but not today. The Cold War ended 20 years ago and the people who served in (e.g.) Vietnam are in power and want you to know how much of a fuckup it was. Even Iran-Contra is covered although it's more likely in a context of "allegations would not stick to the Teflon President".
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I don't think there is a conspiracy or anything but I do think the period gets insufficient attention paid to it given the enormous impact it has had on present day America. It is also really hard to drill into a teenage student's mind just how godawful it was to be black during that time period, in much the same way that people have difficulty getting a true grip of other atrocities in human history. You just don't want to think that people are capable of such horror. I dunno, is it fair to say that insufficient attention is paid to it when its taught multiple times in some form. People get what was going on in those years in the rest of the country once (US History I was what it was called when I was a kid) throughout the whole of their education. Post-WWII gets covered even less, as was pointed out in this thread. Its interesting, there's a lot to cover yet for some reason certain areas get far too much of it. We spend too much time on the Aztecs, Incas and Mayas, too much on the French and Indian War, too much on the Holocaust, and (unless you are like me and live in PA) too much on William Penn and the founding of Philadelphia. We spend far too little on the 1880s to 1900s, settlement of the "Trans-Mississippi west", urban history, and classical history. But where do you fit all that poo poo in? And what do you do about current events/modern history without pissing anybody off?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:John Adams was a shithead. Abigail Adams was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:This would have belonged in the last thread, but I'm glad that my congressional district was not fired up and ready for Ro.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Steve Scalise defender's ties to white nationalist group closer than he disclosed, documents show
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Steve Scalise defender's ties to white nationalist group closer than he disclosed, documents show I'm glad Guy Fieri is finally being outed for the monster he really is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Please let that guy's middle name be like Kevin or Keith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I dunno, is it fair to say that insufficient attention is paid to it when its taught multiple times in some form. People get what was going on in those years in the rest of the country once (US History I was what it was called when I was a kid) throughout the whole of their education. Post-WWII gets covered even less, as was pointed out in this thread. Its interesting, there's a lot to cover yet for some reason certain areas get far too much of it. We spend too much time on the Aztecs, Incas and Mayas, too much on the French and Indian War, too much on the Holocaust, and (unless you are like me and live in PA) too much on William Penn and the founding of Philadelphia. We spend far too little on the 1880s to 1900s, settlement of the "Trans-Mississippi west", urban history, and classical history. But where do you fit all that poo poo in? And what do you do about current events/modern history without pissing anybody off? I think we could probably stand to teach economic history and the development of capitalism from the 1500s onwards, American social history from the early 1800s onwards, and sampler courses on other cultures' histories, and drop everything else. The areas where I personally spent the most time on useless poo poo was Greco-Roman classical history and American military history. Meanwhile stuff like the period from the 1860s to WW1 was basically brushed aside as empty space. The problem though is that liberal/left-leaning people criticizing history courses usually come from the angle of wanting to teach that liberalism/social democracy actually worked quite well and was pretty much the governing paradigm for America for a long time, but not only are you fighting for teaching time with people who are actively hostile to that message, you're also fighting for time with people who actually care about the boring, "irrelevant" bits of history like Classical Greek city states and military history. I think when criticizing this you should have a pretty specific idea of what exactly you want there to be more of, and what you want high school history courses to actually do icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:What the hell is he waiting for? He's going to be competing with football season. It seems like the RNC is trying to limit the number of debates and keep them under strict control (so that they don't have people applauding Texas's execution record or saying "WOO! YEAH!" when the moderator asks if someone without health insurance should die in the street.) Maybe scheduling debates so that few people actually watch them is part of the strategy. 
baw fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The problem though is that liberal/left-leaning people criticizing history courses usually come from the angle of wanting to teach that liberalism/social democracy actually worked quite well and was pretty much the governing paradigm for America for a long time, but not only are you fighting for teaching time with people who are actively hostile to that message, you're also fighting for time with people who actually care about the boring, "irrelevant" bits of history like Classical Greek city states and military history. I think when criticizing this you should have a pretty specific idea of what exactly you want there to be more of, and what you want high school history courses to actually do Why would you want there to be less Greece and Rome? There might be too much Greece (sorry, Hellophiles, Greece is far less important than Rome to modern culture) but I think we get enough or possibly slightly too little Rome and not enough classical Europe. Military history is interesting, less time should be spent on how most of the wars were fought but more should be spent on what effects the wars had politically and socially. Because most all of them, even ones that tend to get skipped over (Spanish American War!) did have large effects on the country for a time. As I said, there's just too much poo poo to get through. Oddly enough I spent a whole year (5th grade) learning about the other countries in the western hemisphere. I assume that was a 1990s Pennsylvania only thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Mario Cuomo died, and I don't care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:As I said, there's just too much poo poo to get through. This is the truth. People are people and while historical contexts do change, they don't change so much that we can't derive useful lessons from nearly any event in the past. There are just too many relevant and important events in history to teach them all. The problem here isn't so much history lessons as popular culture, entertainment doesn't care to focus on stuff that will make the audience feel bad. Heck, if instead of the Civil War, which makes great goodies vs baddies fodder for both sides, slavery had just been slowly compromised away there would probably be much less popular awareness or concern about slavery in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:Mario Cuomo died, and I don't care. He opposed the death penalty, so that was something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
zoux posted:Mario Cuomo died, and I don't care. Doo dah, doo dah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
I'm still pretty interested to see how the Democrats are going to be able to retort against the coming cries of "We TRIED to get work done but OBAMA didn't let us! He's a tyrant!" when he vetoes anything more important than lunch orders. Honestly, it seems like a pretty easy messaging win for the Republicans. They can push really hard for things they want (stronger laws against abortion, putting gays back in the closet, killing atheists in the street), knowing that they really don't have to think them through because they won't pass. When Obama blocks them for literally any reason, they just need to scream about how awful he is for keeping them from doing the good work they were elected for. That will strengthen their base and maybe even win over some of the people who aren't terribly educated in the issues but just want the gridlock to stop. After all, the Republicans are trying to eliminate the gridlock but Obama won't let them!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
joeburz posted:He opposed the death penalty, so that was something. What was his stance on Israel. I guess I'm glad of the death of a Yankee politician.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:I'm still pretty interested to see how the Democrats are going to be able to retort against the coming cries of "We TRIED to get work done but OBAMA didn't let us! He's a tyrant!" when he vetoes anything more important than lunch orders. Now they just have to agree on what they want, without earmarks to persuade reluctant members.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:I'm still pretty interested to see how the Democrats are going to be able to retort against the coming cries of "We TRIED to get work done but OBAMA didn't let us! He's a tyrant!" when he vetoes anything more important than lunch orders. It gets harder for them to blame Obama when they control both chambers. All the things they can do to turn out their own base will turn out the Democratic base in 2016 as well. There's obviously more "slack" in the Democratic base as far as people actually turning out to vote. I think the line they have to walk over the next two years is thinner than most people realize.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:
If stopping the gridlock was enough to motivate such people wouldn't the past few years already have done that? Granted the R side tends to be much, much louder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
SMLOTUS in an exercise accident. (He'll be fine but he broke his face and some ribs)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
baw posted:SMLOTUS in an exercise accident. How's his spine?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Hasn't had one for years 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:This is the truth. People are people and while historical contexts do change, they don't change so much that we can't derive useful lessons from nearly any event in the past. There are just too many relevant and important events in history to teach them all. At least from my experience, they have phased out all of the stuff people find tangential (Greek, Roman stuff) or at least it's not included in a class about US history. It also really depends which age group you're talking about though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:It gets harder for them to blame Obama when they control both chambers. On the other hand the right wing pundits have been priming their "Democrats are the real Party of No" tag line all last Congress and the Tea Party wing is already pointing to Obama's veto pen as proof. It'll be hard to shake off that label when it's no longer hidden in negative actions (legislative tricks like not taking up bills). When rejection is refocused as a positive action (vetoing bills) it's a lot harder to dodge blame. baw posted:SMLOTUS in an exercise accident. SMaLOTUS soon to be SMiLOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:On the other hand the right wing pundits have been priming their "Democrats are the real Party of No" tag line all last Congress and the Tea Party wing is already pointing to Obama's veto pen as proof. It'll be hard to shake off that label when it's no longer hidden in negative actions (legislative tricks like not taking up bills). When rejection is refocused as a positive action (vetoing bills) it's a lot harder to dodge blame. Don't worry the GOP will take 100% credit for low gas prices and good economy though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:My New Year thus far involved a kitchen fire, so needless to say my plans to build on and tweak the contribution of ComradeCosmobot were delayed. I present what they put together (9 pages worth) below ......... ......... .........  Yeah. I'm going to take the thread title's advice. gently caress politics forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Don't worry the GOP will take 100% credit for low gas prices and good economy though. Rick Perry is very much hoping that people don't credit him with low gas prices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Rick Perry is very much hoping that people don't credit him with low gas prices. Its funny how they championed the idea that Obama was driving gas prices sky high, and now are embarrassed because their lobbyists are hurting from low gas prices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:Yeah. I'm going to take the thread title's advice. gently caress politics forever. Some of my favorites are the bills specifically designed to do nothing more than produce Fox talking points whether they pass or not. "Why doesn't Obama want us to know how many regulations his agencies are promulgating? How do we know how big government really is? We need smaller government!"/"Did you know that over 1,000 regulations will be added in the next year? We need smaller government!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:I'm still pretty interested to see how the Democrats are going to be able to retort against the coming cries of "We TRIED to get work done but OBAMA didn't let us! He's a tyrant!" when he vetoes anything more important than lunch orders. I would hope that the Democrats could push back by highlight some of the shittier bills as stuff that the American people don't want,, but that would require competence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Yeah, as the GOP have shown inaction and obstruction can motivate your base if you sell it right but the Dems likely won't be able to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:On the other hand the right wing pundits have been priming their "Democrats are the real Party of No" tag line all last Congress and the Tea Party wing is already pointing to Obama's veto pen as proof. It'll be hard to shake off that label when it's no longer hidden in negative actions (legislative tricks like not taking up bills). When rejection is refocused as a positive action (vetoing bills) it's a lot harder to dodge
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:On the other hand the right wing pundits have been priming their "Democrats are the real Party of No" tag line all last Congress and the Tea Party wing is already pointing to Obama's veto pen as proof. It'll be hard to shake off that label when it's no longer hidden in negative actions (legislative tricks like not taking up bills). When rejection is refocused as a positive action (vetoing bills) it's a lot harder to dodge blame. Obama won't be running for office again though. I'm sure there will be strategic defections in Congress on this bill or that which only take place because they know the President will veto the bill if it passes. There will be difficulty painting the entire party that way. I'm actually anticipating that they're going to try and pass bills that are reasonable ENOUGH that Obama will sign a few of them, lest they confirm they were the problem all along which will hurt them far longer than just 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:I'm still pretty interested to see how the Democrats are going to be able to retort against the coming cries of "We TRIED to get work done but OBAMA didn't let us! He's a tyrant!" when he vetoes anything more important than lunch orders. They can't push too hard or they're in danger of being hoisted on their own petard. They were always going to complain about Obama's tyranical veto pen, but they can't actually get anywhere with that if Obama's vetoes are of the Lock Gays In The Closet Bill, Burn The EPA At The Stake Statute, and the Tax Cuts For The Rich, Snide Laughs For The Poor Omnibus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Gyges posted:They can't push too hard or they're in danger of being hoisted on their own petard. They were always going to complain about Obama's tyranical veto pen, but they can't actually get anywhere with that if Obama's vetoes are of the Lock Gays In The Closet Bill, Burn The EPA At The Stake Statute, and the Tax Cuts For The Rich, Snide Laughs For The Poor Omnibus. They could if they piggy back Lock Gays in the Closet with No Social Security for Osama bin Laden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:I would hope that the Democrats could push back by highlight some of the shittier bills as stuff that the American people don't want,, but that would require competence. It would also require a majority of the voting public to understand subtleties. All they'll hear is politician XX voted against the "MAKING 'MERICA GREAT" bill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:They could if they piggy back Lock Gays in the Closet with No Social Security for Osama bin Laden. What about a "find Osama's corpse so we can piss on it" act?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:28
|
|