Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Shadowfax
ParticipantRus,
FWIW, I think this was an open minded exposition of where you stand. It seems to fall into the “live and let live” even if I don’t approve of it camp. There are elements of both the homosexual community and the heterosexual community that I don’t particularly like to see displayed, but that isn’t really what this educational initialive is all about (from what I can tell). If you can abide with including them as a part of history, then we are on the same page.
But there does have to be some message that you can’t harass a kid because he identifies with a sexual preference, a race, a religion, etc. different from the majority. I don’t want to see muslim kids harassed by a predominantly christian (and, by those acts, predominantly hypocritical) majority. Same application to “gay kids.”
I would add that at a minimum until jr high school, most kids shouldn’t be and many can’t legitimately identify one way or the other… So the sexuality issue shouldn’t be part of the curriculum, aside from sex ed. Yes, this should be taught in school (as well as at home) because many parents can’t seem to find the time or the courage to talk to their kids about it. And knowledge keeps kids from doing something stupid…we hope.
April 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM in reply to: Relocating from SF to Del Mar or Santaluz or Olivenhain or FBR or other? #690473Participantsf2sd: Our family is actually looking at doing the reverse of your move. From SD to SF. We are also transplanted East Coasters. We have scouted the Bay Area a bit and like Mill Valley and some east bay areas around Walnut Creek. Any insights, based on your same criteria? Our budget’s half of yours, so that would be a factor. Same deal though–kids need good schools, nice community feel, easy commuting options are high on the list. Want to live there a year or so, scout out areas, then look into buying.
As for San Diego, Encinitas is quite nice–we have friends with kids and they have had a great experience there. Are you averse to moving further south? You might like some of the outlying areas of La Jolla (in between downtown La Jolla proper and UTC, the latter being comprised mainly of off-campus housing for UCSD). I think the area I am thinking of is called La Jolla Farms (lots of professors live there) as well as Mt Soledad. Lastly, my favorite, but far south, is Coronado. VERY family friendly, good schools (public), has a great small town, community feel (you will start to know and recognize people within the first 3 months you live there). Your buying price range will put you into a small house here, but most houses here are 3-4 BR beach bungalows, so beware if you are looking for something bigger.
You could also look into Poway (east of I-15) as they have a great school system and the newer area Carmel Heights (?–the exact name is escaping me), etc. Others here can probably chime in on these. The area is newly developed so lots of tract housing, but I hear the schools are good.
Best of luck!!
April 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM in reply to: Relocating from SF to Del Mar or Santaluz or Olivenhain or FBR or other? #690543Participantsf2sd: Our family is actually looking at doing the reverse of your move. From SD to SF. We are also transplanted East Coasters. We have scouted the Bay Area a bit and like Mill Valley and some east bay areas around Walnut Creek. Any insights, based on your same criteria? Our budget’s half of yours, so that would be a factor. Same deal though–kids need good schools, nice community feel, easy commuting options are high on the list. Want to live there a year or so, scout out areas, then look into buying.
As for San Diego, Encinitas is quite nice–we have friends with kids and they have had a great experience there. Are you averse to moving further south? You might like some of the outlying areas of La Jolla (in between downtown La Jolla proper and UTC, the latter being comprised mainly of off-campus housing for UCSD). I think the area I am thinking of is called La Jolla Farms (lots of professors live there) as well as Mt Soledad. Lastly, my favorite, but far south, is Coronado. VERY family friendly, good schools (public), has a great small town, community feel (you will start to know and recognize people within the first 3 months you live there). Your buying price range will put you into a small house here, but most houses here are 3-4 BR beach bungalows, so beware if you are looking for something bigger.
You could also look into Poway (east of I-15) as they have a great school system and the newer area Carmel Heights (?–the exact name is escaping me), etc. Others here can probably chime in on these. The area is newly developed so lots of tract housing, but I hear the schools are good.
Best of luck!!
April 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM in reply to: Relocating from SF to Del Mar or Santaluz or Olivenhain or FBR or other? #691157Participantsf2sd: Our family is actually looking at doing the reverse of your move. From SD to SF. We are also transplanted East Coasters. We have scouted the Bay Area a bit and like Mill Valley and some east bay areas around Walnut Creek. Any insights, based on your same criteria? Our budget’s half of yours, so that would be a factor. Same deal though–kids need good schools, nice community feel, easy commuting options are high on the list. Want to live there a year or so, scout out areas, then look into buying.
As for San Diego, Encinitas is quite nice–we have friends with kids and they have had a great experience there. Are you averse to moving further south? You might like some of the outlying areas of La Jolla (in between downtown La Jolla proper and UTC, the latter being comprised mainly of off-campus housing for UCSD). I think the area I am thinking of is called La Jolla Farms (lots of professors live there) as well as Mt Soledad. Lastly, my favorite, but far south, is Coronado. VERY family friendly, good schools (public), has a great small town, community feel (you will start to know and recognize people within the first 3 months you live there). Your buying price range will put you into a small house here, but most houses here are 3-4 BR beach bungalows, so beware if you are looking for something bigger.
You could also look into Poway (east of I-15) as they have a great school system and the newer area Carmel Heights (?–the exact name is escaping me), etc. Others here can probably chime in on these. The area is newly developed so lots of tract housing, but I hear the schools are good.
Best of luck!!
April 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM in reply to: Relocating from SF to Del Mar or Santaluz or Olivenhain or FBR or other? #691302Participantsf2sd: Our family is actually looking at doing the reverse of your move. From SD to SF. We are also transplanted East Coasters. We have scouted the Bay Area a bit and like Mill Valley and some east bay areas around Walnut Creek. Any insights, based on your same criteria? Our budget’s half of yours, so that would be a factor. Same deal though–kids need good schools, nice community feel, easy commuting options are high on the list. Want to live there a year or so, scout out areas, then look into buying.
As for San Diego, Encinitas is quite nice–we have friends with kids and they have had a great experience there. Are you averse to moving further south? You might like some of the outlying areas of La Jolla (in between downtown La Jolla proper and UTC, the latter being comprised mainly of off-campus housing for UCSD). I think the area I am thinking of is called La Jolla Farms (lots of professors live there) as well as Mt Soledad. Lastly, my favorite, but far south, is Coronado. VERY family friendly, good schools (public), has a great small town, community feel (you will start to know and recognize people within the first 3 months you live there). Your buying price range will put you into a small house here, but most houses here are 3-4 BR beach bungalows, so beware if you are looking for something bigger.
You could also look into Poway (east of I-15) as they have a great school system and the newer area Carmel Heights (?–the exact name is escaping me), etc. Others here can probably chime in on these. The area is newly developed so lots of tract housing, but I hear the schools are good.
Best of luck!!
April 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM in reply to: Relocating from SF to Del Mar or Santaluz or Olivenhain or FBR or other? #691646Participantsf2sd: Our family is actually looking at doing the reverse of your move. From SD to SF. We are also transplanted East Coasters. We have scouted the Bay Area a bit and like Mill Valley and some east bay areas around Walnut Creek. Any insights, based on your same criteria? Our budget’s half of yours, so that would be a factor. Same deal though–kids need good schools, nice community feel, easy commuting options are high on the list. Want to live there a year or so, scout out areas, then look into buying.
As for San Diego, Encinitas is quite nice–we have friends with kids and they have had a great experience there. Are you averse to moving further south? You might like some of the outlying areas of La Jolla (in between downtown La Jolla proper and UTC, the latter being comprised mainly of off-campus housing for UCSD). I think the area I am thinking of is called La Jolla Farms (lots of professors live there) as well as Mt Soledad. Lastly, my favorite, but far south, is Coronado. VERY family friendly, good schools (public), has a great small town, community feel (you will start to know and recognize people within the first 3 months you live there). Your buying price range will put you into a small house here, but most houses here are 3-4 BR beach bungalows, so beware if you are looking for something bigger.
You could also look into Poway (east of I-15) as they have a great school system and the newer area Carmel Heights (?–the exact name is escaping me), etc. Others here can probably chime in on these. The area is newly developed so lots of tract housing, but I hear the schools are good.
Best of luck!!
Participant[quote=captcha]Your argument for public workers non-salary compensation applies here. The military will make a man out of you (snark?), but that in itself won’t compel enough kids to join. There has to be a pot of gold at the end or the quota would not get filled. And the public can’t take benefits away from prison guards, C-level executives or teachers is not likely to succeed in taking away a significant chunk from veterans and MIC.[/quote]
“..enough kids to join….” hm. That’s a whole other topic. Do I sense some cheekiness, there? I hope?
Just to clarify, I don’t think that they should get nothing, but a military life used to be about service and some (who will no doubt jump in here any minute) join just because they really feel compelled to do it. I don’t favor war, but sometimes I know you have to do some nasty stuff to bring people in line. Our current commitments have spun far out of control and it’s killing us economically.
But for those that think the public sector is getting special treatment with pensions, I want to make the comparison. San Diego is a community with a high concentration of military families. They go through alot–both the people who leave and the families that stay behind. But let’s look at what they get: Housing for their families is provided or subsidized (this is not just for the serviceperson, but the family dwelling. I can’t think of any other public sector job that provides this); discounted retailers (exchanges, etc.); military discounts everywhere else you go; paid on the job training; regular pay; combat pay; other extra pay for other events; pensions after 20 years (and others I probably don’t know about). (I think they should definitely get health benefits, esp for battle related injuries/conditions, but that their families should have to get insurance like the rest of us.) And you don’t have to go into combat to serve your 20 years and get a pension. My main issue about the pension is that it shouldn’t be paid to you if you have other substantial income. (I feel the same about social security–those with adequate means set out on a sliding scale like tax tables should not be able to collect it.) If you are working full-time at as much or more as the pension amount, the pension should be deferred. Logicially it flies in the face of the definition of a pension.
Serving in the military is a demanding life, no doubt, but so is life everywhere. No one else in the public sector gets these kind of benefits–not even prison guards or police officers, who also deal with “bad guys” every day.
And there is an overreaching aspect to this–the initial point of having a national militia was never to serve as an overseas combat force but to protect our own shores. The world military dynamics changed with the World Wars, but the extra pay for being overseas/deployed just compounds the expense. If service was mandatory (and I don’t know where I stand on that), I’d think the compensation would be justified–since you are giving up a year of freedom in exchange. But with voluntary service, the pay is out of whack, IMHO.
Participant[quote=captcha]Your argument for public workers non-salary compensation applies here. The military will make a man out of you (snark?), but that in itself won’t compel enough kids to join. There has to be a pot of gold at the end or the quota would not get filled. And the public can’t take benefits away from prison guards, C-level executives or teachers is not likely to succeed in taking away a significant chunk from veterans and MIC.[/quote]
“..enough kids to join….” hm. That’s a whole other topic. Do I sense some cheekiness, there? I hope?
Just to clarify, I don’t think that they should get nothing, but a military life used to be about service and some (who will no doubt jump in here any minute) join just because they really feel compelled to do it. I don’t favor war, but sometimes I know you have to do some nasty stuff to bring people in line. Our current commitments have spun far out of control and it’s killing us economically.
But for those that think the public sector is getting special treatment with pensions, I want to make the comparison. San Diego is a community with a high concentration of military families. They go through alot–both the people who leave and the families that stay behind. But let’s look at what they get: Housing for their families is provided or subsidized (this is not just for the serviceperson, but the family dwelling. I can’t think of any other public sector job that provides this); discounted retailers (exchanges, etc.); military discounts everywhere else you go; paid on the job training; regular pay; combat pay; other extra pay for other events; pensions after 20 years (and others I probably don’t know about). (I think they should definitely get health benefits, esp for battle related injuries/conditions, but that their families should have to get insurance like the rest of us.) And you don’t have to go into combat to serve your 20 years and get a pension. My main issue about the pension is that it shouldn’t be paid to you if you have other substantial income. (I feel the same about social security–those with adequate means set out on a sliding scale like tax tables should not be able to collect it.) If you are working full-time at as much or more as the pension amount, the pension should be deferred. Logicially it flies in the face of the definition of a pension.
Serving in the military is a demanding life, no doubt, but so is life everywhere. No one else in the public sector gets these kind of benefits–not even prison guards or police officers, who also deal with “bad guys” every day.
And there is an overreaching aspect to this–the initial point of having a national militia was never to serve as an overseas combat force but to protect our own shores. The world military dynamics changed with the World Wars, but the extra pay for being overseas/deployed just compounds the expense. If service was mandatory (and I don’t know where I stand on that), I’d think the compensation would be justified–since you are giving up a year of freedom in exchange. But with voluntary service, the pay is out of whack, IMHO.
Participant[quote=captcha]Your argument for public workers non-salary compensation applies here. The military will make a man out of you (snark?), but that in itself won’t compel enough kids to join. There has to be a pot of gold at the end or the quota would not get filled. And the public can’t take benefits away from prison guards, C-level executives or teachers is not likely to succeed in taking away a significant chunk from veterans and MIC.[/quote]
“..enough kids to join….” hm. That’s a whole other topic. Do I sense some cheekiness, there? I hope?
Just to clarify, I don’t think that they should get nothing, but a military life used to be about service and some (who will no doubt jump in here any minute) join just because they really feel compelled to do it. I don’t favor war, but sometimes I know you have to do some nasty stuff to bring people in line. Our current commitments have spun far out of control and it’s killing us economically.
But for those that think the public sector is getting special treatment with pensions, I want to make the comparison. San Diego is a community with a high concentration of military families. They go through alot–both the people who leave and the families that stay behind. But let’s look at what they get: Housing for their families is provided or subsidized (this is not just for the serviceperson, but the family dwelling. I can’t think of any other public sector job that provides this); discounted retailers (exchanges, etc.); military discounts everywhere else you go; paid on the job training; regular pay; combat pay; other extra pay for other events; pensions after 20 years (and others I probably don’t know about). (I think they should definitely get health benefits, esp for battle related injuries/conditions, but that their families should have to get insurance like the rest of us.) And you don’t have to go into combat to serve your 20 years and get a pension. My main issue about the pension is that it shouldn’t be paid to you if you have other substantial income. (I feel the same about social security–those with adequate means set out on a sliding scale like tax tables should not be able to collect it.) If you are working full-time at as much or more as the pension amount, the pension should be deferred. Logicially it flies in the face of the definition of a pension.
Serving in the military is a demanding life, no doubt, but so is life everywhere. No one else in the public sector gets these kind of benefits–not even prison guards or police officers, who also deal with “bad guys” every day.
And there is an overreaching aspect to this–the initial point of having a national militia was never to serve as an overseas combat force but to protect our own shores. The world military dynamics changed with the World Wars, but the extra pay for being overseas/deployed just compounds the expense. If service was mandatory (and I don’t know where I stand on that), I’d think the compensation would be justified–since you are giving up a year of freedom in exchange. But with voluntary service, the pay is out of whack, IMHO.
Participant[quote=captcha]Your argument for public workers non-salary compensation applies here. The military will make a man out of you (snark?), but that in itself won’t compel enough kids to join. There has to be a pot of gold at the end or the quota would not get filled. And the public can’t take benefits away from prison guards, C-level executives or teachers is not likely to succeed in taking away a significant chunk from veterans and MIC.[/quote]
“..enough kids to join….” hm. That’s a whole other topic. Do I sense some cheekiness, there? I hope?
Just to clarify, I don’t think that they should get nothing, but a military life used to be about service and some (who will no doubt jump in here any minute) join just because they really feel compelled to do it. I don’t favor war, but sometimes I know you have to do some nasty stuff to bring people in line. Our current commitments have spun far out of control and it’s killing us economically.
But for those that think the public sector is getting special treatment with pensions, I want to make the comparison. San Diego is a community with a high concentration of military families. They go through alot–both the people who leave and the families that stay behind. But let’s look at what they get: Housing for their families is provided or subsidized (this is not just for the serviceperson, but the family dwelling. I can’t think of any other public sector job that provides this); discounted retailers (exchanges, etc.); military discounts everywhere else you go; paid on the job training; regular pay; combat pay; other extra pay for other events; pensions after 20 years (and others I probably don’t know about). (I think they should definitely get health benefits, esp for battle related injuries/conditions, but that their families should have to get insurance like the rest of us.) And you don’t have to go into combat to serve your 20 years and get a pension. My main issue about the pension is that it shouldn’t be paid to you if you have other substantial income. (I feel the same about social security–those with adequate means set out on a sliding scale like tax tables should not be able to collect it.) If you are working full-time at as much or more as the pension amount, the pension should be deferred. Logicially it flies in the face of the definition of a pension.
Serving in the military is a demanding life, no doubt, but so is life everywhere. No one else in the public sector gets these kind of benefits–not even prison guards or police officers, who also deal with “bad guys” every day.
And there is an overreaching aspect to this–the initial point of having a national militia was never to serve as an overseas combat force but to protect our own shores. The world military dynamics changed with the World Wars, but the extra pay for being overseas/deployed just compounds the expense. If service was mandatory (and I don’t know where I stand on that), I’d think the compensation would be justified–since you are giving up a year of freedom in exchange. But with voluntary service, the pay is out of whack, IMHO.
Participant[quote=captcha]Your argument for public workers non-salary compensation applies here. The military will make a man out of you (snark?), but that in itself won’t compel enough kids to join. There has to be a pot of gold at the end or the quota would not get filled. And the public can’t take benefits away from prison guards, C-level executives or teachers is not likely to succeed in taking away a significant chunk from veterans and MIC.[/quote]
“..enough kids to join….” hm. That’s a whole other topic. Do I sense some cheekiness, there? I hope?
Just to clarify, I don’t think that they should get nothing, but a military life used to be about service and some (who will no doubt jump in here any minute) join just because they really feel compelled to do it. I don’t favor war, but sometimes I know you have to do some nasty stuff to bring people in line. Our current commitments have spun far out of control and it’s killing us economically.
But for those that think the public sector is getting special treatment with pensions, I want to make the comparison. San Diego is a community with a high concentration of military families. They go through alot–both the people who leave and the families that stay behind. But let’s look at what they get: Housing for their families is provided or subsidized (this is not just for the serviceperson, but the family dwelling. I can’t think of any other public sector job that provides this); discounted retailers (exchanges, etc.); military discounts everywhere else you go; paid on the job training; regular pay; combat pay; other extra pay for other events; pensions after 20 years (and others I probably don’t know about). (I think they should definitely get health benefits, esp for battle related injuries/conditions, but that their families should have to get insurance like the rest of us.) And you don’t have to go into combat to serve your 20 years and get a pension. My main issue about the pension is that it shouldn’t be paid to you if you have other substantial income. (I feel the same about social security–those with adequate means set out on a sliding scale like tax tables should not be able to collect it.) If you are working full-time at as much or more as the pension amount, the pension should be deferred. Logicially it flies in the face of the definition of a pension.
Serving in the military is a demanding life, no doubt, but so is life everywhere. No one else in the public sector gets these kind of benefits–not even prison guards or police officers, who also deal with “bad guys” every day.
And there is an overreaching aspect to this–the initial point of having a national militia was never to serve as an overseas combat force but to protect our own shores. The world military dynamics changed with the World Wars, but the extra pay for being overseas/deployed just compounds the expense. If service was mandatory (and I don’t know where I stand on that), I’d think the compensation would be justified–since you are giving up a year of freedom in exchange. But with voluntary service, the pay is out of whack, IMHO.
Participant[quote=jficquette]While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.
The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.
John[/quote]
I have not read any of Rand’s works. They are just too damn long. I tried once but quickly lost interest. (And this is from someone who has read a lot of Tolstoy!)John, I think you are giving too much creedence to an IQ test that doesn’t take into account what the intelligence is focused on or how it is measured. Setting aside the violent offenders, most people in prison these days were petty criminals (drug-related) trying to get ahead in the only way they had available to them. While many were unsuccessful at traditional forms of education, I am sure they were plenty “street smart” until they got caught. I don’t think you or I would last one day in their street environment. By the same measure, that makes us of a low IQ.
The only way to test my theory, sadly, is we need to throw the management of most Wall Street firms in jail, since they managed to lead criminal activites and not get caught, largely through influence over the laws themselves. Buy the votes on a bill that makes stealing legal. There’s IQ for you…The petty criminals just didn’t steal a large enough amount of money.
Participant[quote=jficquette]While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.
The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.
John[/quote]
I have not read any of Rand’s works. They are just too damn long. I tried once but quickly lost interest. (And this is from someone who has read a lot of Tolstoy!)John, I think you are giving too much creedence to an IQ test that doesn’t take into account what the intelligence is focused on or how it is measured. Setting aside the violent offenders, most people in prison these days were petty criminals (drug-related) trying to get ahead in the only way they had available to them. While many were unsuccessful at traditional forms of education, I am sure they were plenty “street smart” until they got caught. I don’t think you or I would last one day in their street environment. By the same measure, that makes us of a low IQ.
The only way to test my theory, sadly, is we need to throw the management of most Wall Street firms in jail, since they managed to lead criminal activites and not get caught, largely through influence over the laws themselves. Buy the votes on a bill that makes stealing legal. There’s IQ for you…The petty criminals just didn’t steal a large enough amount of money.
Participant[quote=jficquette]While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.
The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.
John[/quote]
I have not read any of Rand’s works. They are just too damn long. I tried once but quickly lost interest. (And this is from someone who has read a lot of Tolstoy!)John, I think you are giving too much creedence to an IQ test that doesn’t take into account what the intelligence is focused on or how it is measured. Setting aside the violent offenders, most people in prison these days were petty criminals (drug-related) trying to get ahead in the only way they had available to them. While many were unsuccessful at traditional forms of education, I am sure they were plenty “street smart” until they got caught. I don’t think you or I would last one day in their street environment. By the same measure, that makes us of a low IQ.
The only way to test my theory, sadly, is we need to throw the management of most Wall Street firms in jail, since they managed to lead criminal activites and not get caught, largely through influence over the laws themselves. Buy the votes on a bill that makes stealing legal. There’s IQ for you…The petty criminals just didn’t steal a large enough amount of money.
-
AuthorPosts