DailyTech - Government Council Proposes $11.2B USD "A Kindle in Every Backpack" Initiative

Oh man

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 7/16/2009 9:28:22 AM , Rating: 5

Democratic Leadership Council
$11.2 billion
56 million "handouts"

Somewhere, FITcamaro is foaming at the mouth. Obama bashing in 3..2...1...

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 9:54:28 AM , Rating: 2

Didn't mention Obama once. :)

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 7/16/2009 9:59:18 AM , Rating: 2

I'm proud of you man ;)

Parent

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 10:45:45 AM , Rating: 5

But he's still a piece of sh*t.

Yeah I know. Had to blow it.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By mattclary on 7/16/09, Rating: 0

RE: Oh man

By DigitalFreak on 7/16/2009 11:55:44 AM , Rating: 5

All politicians are pieces of shit. Party doesn't make a difference.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By MrBlastman on 7/16/2009 12:23:23 PM , Rating: 5

While they are all pieces of poop, I propose there are different flavors of this "poop" ...

Clinton was a greasy turd that slid out like a bullet splashing water on your rectum pissing you off.

Bush Sr. was one of those dried out fat turds that just didn't want to come out of your rectum, but hurt like hell when it finally did causing a fissure and bleeding.

Bush Jr. was like one of those sticky turds that form a "rhino horn" on the lip of the bowl and will never flush down the commode.

Obama is like one of those green, stinky turds that make you go - wtf is that?! (Or in Americas case - wtf was just elected)

Bob Dole was like one of those white, rotting, stale dog poop turds sitting next the curb.

Dan Quayle was like one of those turds with bits of corn that held its texture just long enough to come out but splattered everywhere once it hit the porcelain.

Shall I go on with more examples?

You can clearly see there is a subtle, but picante difference in each of them.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By klstay on 7/16/2009 12:36:02 PM , Rating: 1

ROFLMAO

Parent

RE: Oh man

By onelittleindian on 7/16/09, Rating: -1

RE: Oh man

By PandaBear on 7/16/2009 4:40:23 PM , Rating: 5

Well Regan is like a piece of those shiny ones that looks slick, a swirl of ice cream shaped piece that is just as stinky.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By ipay on 7/16/2009 3:43:31 PM , Rating: 2

Somebody give the man a +6!

Parent

RE: Oh man

By bodar on 7/17/2009 8:14:41 AM , Rating: 3

This is alarmingly well thought-out. By all means though, go on.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By crimson117 on 7/19/2009 11:19:03 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
All politicians are pieces of shit. Party doesn't make a difference.

Shooter McGavin: You're in big trouble though, pal. I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast!
Happy Gilmore: [laughing] You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?
Shooter McGavin: [long pause] No!

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Spuke on 7/16/2009 2:17:58 PM , Rating: 2

ROFL!!!!

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Omega215D on 7/17/2009 3:27:06 AM , Rating: 2

Aww, and you were doing so well too. No Klondike Bar for you.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By mdogs444 on 7/16/2009 9:58:08 AM , Rating: 5

Makes me absolutely sick. These liberal democrats must think the nation has an unlimited credit card account that never needs to be repaid.

These bums who are pushing all this spending, tax increases, trillion dollar deficits, and cap & tax crap need to be kicked out of office......actually, I know what would even be better, but I'll hold my tongue.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By wuZheng on 7/16/09, Rating: -1

RE: Oh man

By mdogs444 on 7/16/2009 10:43:18 AM , Rating: 2

Ah yes - lets just let them do whatever they want for 4 years, and when it comes time to vote them out, we'll have all these new entitlements that are next to impossible to rescind.

What a great idea.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By ClownPuncher on 7/16/2009 12:08:33 PM , Rating: 2

It's kind of how Democracy works. Lefties dealt with Bush for 8 years, now Righties have to deal with Obama for a term, maybe 2.

Sucks for some, not so much for others.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By invidious on 7/16/2009 1:01:32 PM , Rating: 3

I am still convinced that anyone who likes Obama just likes the 'idea' of Obama and likes his speaches but really doesn't know enough about economics/politics to know what he is actually doing to our country. He is probably the least american president we have had in a long time.

I thought 1984 was every liberals favorite book, maybe they should read it again.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Netscorer on 7/16/2009 1:50:05 PM , Rating: 5

Strange,

personally for me it seemed that way during the G.W.Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld troika era. All that expansive paranoia, falsification and fabrication of evidence to justify the secret policing of it's own citizens and expanding self-fulfilling policies throughout the world, unacceptance and mockering of any opposing view. Does not ring a bell?

Parent

RE: Oh man

By onelittleindian on 7/16/2009 2:00:52 PM , Rating: 2

It only rings if your bell is cracked to start with. Even your average 8-year old is too smart to swallow that "falsification of evidence" line, once they know that not only did the Bush administration believe Iraq's weapons program was larger than it was, but so did the intelligence services of Germany, France, and a dozen other nations -- as did the Clinton administration as well.

So what's your excuse?

Parent

RE: Oh man

By dsx724 on 7/16/2009 3:41:52 PM , Rating: 1

o.0
saddams wmd's were no deadlier than the fart from my @ss.
however, i can't believe you feel threatened by them .
i'm scared of all the 12 y/o kids that are carrying in the city, but i don't go around killing them.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By clovell on 7/16/2009 4:01:12 PM , Rating: 2

Saddam's WMDs were outlawed worldwide by the Geneva Protocol in 1925 following WWI (and subsequently by the CWC of 1993). These weapons cause severe subdermal and internal blistering, bleeding, and burns, leading to sepsis, infection, and pulmonary edema. They are also highly carcinogenic and mutagenic. These same weapons were used by Saddam Hussein in the genocide committed against the Kurdish people from 1986-1989.

You might consider revising your diet.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Netscorer on 7/16/2009 4:31:35 PM , Rating: 2

This same class of weapons was used by U.S. against civilians during the Vietnam war. Does this feel better now? You can't take something that happened before as your sole justification for the war - you need current evidence. But what if you don't have one and still just itching to go to flex your muscles. Then you invent 'evidence' that will support you point of view and go make war anyway.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By clovell on 7/16/2009 5:53:26 PM , Rating: 3

Mustard gas was found in 2004. Bush was also the first to acknolwedge the effects of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and to help Vietnam work to remediate dioxin hotspots.

I'm not saying the war was justified. I'm just saying the stuff we found wasn't as harmless as a fart.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By dsx724 on 7/16/2009 7:21:05 PM , Rating: 2

Obviously you weren't ever near me when I did it. You would wish it was only blisters.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By ClownPuncher on 7/16/2009 7:25:27 PM , Rating: 2

Mustard Gas is also not a WMD. Nasty, yes. WMD, no.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By lightfoot on 7/17/2009 5:59:56 PM , Rating: 4

Weapons of Mass Destruction are by definition Chemical, Biological or Nuclear. Recently added to the list are radiological weapons (radioactive dirty bombs.)

Mustard Gas is a chemical weapon and thus is banned as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD.)

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Netscorer on 7/16/2009 4:22:45 PM , Rating: 2

Hold on a second. You mean photos that Powell showed to U.N. and the entire world as a 'beyond any doubt' confirmation of Iraqi WMD program was not a fabricated evidence? As in, let's make a photo of a refrigeration truck, and tell everyone that it's a germ factory. Did they even find that truck (or any other evidence as they claimed)? I mean ever? If you call something evidence beyond any doubt and then fail to actually produce one, I call it fabrication of the facts, plain and simple.
And even your '8-year old smarty' knows that all intelligence agencies were getting their pre-war evidence from the same source, who turned out to be a Iraqi opposition, trying to get rid of Saddam (read get the power for themselves) at any cost. Add this to the troika's insistence to CIA that you go and find facts supporting war (read, here's your agenda - now go and make it happen) and you get the idea.
If we can reconstruct reasoning for the war, it was something like this:

A) Iraq has extensive WMD program and both weapons and delivery mechanism to hurt U.S. - let's go get him.
- Oh, but that's not true on all of the points.

B) OK, what we actually meant was Saddam is a SOB and subsidizes world terrorism and Bin Laden, in particular. He's a mastermind behind 9/11
- Oh, oh. Not true again. Saddam never had a connection to terrorism and depised Bin Laden

C) Damn it. Alright, let us think for a second. Oh yeah - Saddam is worse then Stalin and Hitler together. He's a dictator who kills his own people and we would lead a liberation war to free Iraqi people from this abomination of a man.
- If by liberating Iraqi people you mean killing them by thousands in the name of western progress and triggering civil war in the process, then yes - you are right.

D) So we are righteous. Here - you admitted it.
- Whatever.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By JediJeb on 7/16/2009 2:28:15 PM , Rating: 5

1984 was a good book, but I actually believe " Animal Farm" is much closer to what is happening right now. The subtle takeover of the country converting it into exactly what we were told it was to be changed away from. Honestly I think Animal Farm is a much more frightening story than 1984.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By geddarkstorm on 7/16/2009 2:50:50 PM , Rating: 2

Each small step, my friend.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By crimson117 on 7/19/2009 11:44:51 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
I am still convinced that anyone who likes Obama just likes the 'idea' of Obama

I think that's true of almost every president - obama, bush jr, clinton being the ones that I'm familiar with, I think they all meet that description. They say things on the campaign trail, then you pick one and hope he does what he said he'd do.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By rdeegvainl on 7/17/2009 10:37:51 AM , Rating: 3

Funny, I thought that since we elect them to represent us, we should let them know how we want to be represented, and when we disapprove of the job they do.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 10:45:05 AM , Rating: 3

Uh that's what he means by "kicked out of office".

And just because an administration is gone doesn't mean the damage they've done is gone as well. The next president elected in 2012 and the few after that are going to have to deal with the consequences of all this spending. Not the current one.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 7/16/2009 10:46:31 AM , Rating: 2

Just like we are all still paying for Bush's mistakes. It's a vicious cycle.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By mattclary on 7/16/2009 10:54:54 AM , Rating: 2

In the long run, Bush's mistakes are going to look like a kid shoplifting a candy bard.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Donovan on 7/16/09, Rating: -1

RE: Oh man

By ClownPuncher on 7/16/2009 11:59:59 AM , Rating: 4

I don't remember a draft in place, I'm also fuzzy on the whole "Bush is a murderer" thing. He wasn't my favorite president, or even close, but let us keep things in the realm of sanity.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By clovell on 7/16/2009 12:06:20 PM , Rating: 2

Well, be sure not to miss the soldiers killed in Afghanistan, as Obama executes a surge there - it's tough not to miss it though, when all the news networks run is Michael Jackson hysteria.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By onelittleindian on 7/16/2009 1:52:04 PM , Rating: 3

Funny how you don't count all the civilian lives saved by removing Hossein from office. He killed 30X as many of his own people as the Iraq war ever did. Ridding the world of that regime saved lives. It didn't cost them.

Personally I think the Iraq war was a mistake, from the perspective of benefit to the USA. But claiming it was anything but a godsend for the Iraqi people is just plain stupidity.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By dsx724 on 7/16/2009 3:55:12 PM , Rating: 1

As a direct result of American "intervention", more than 100k civilians have died in violence and tens of thousands more in ethnic conflict. Thats at least 30x the 5000 Kurdish that died in the Iraq Iran war. People are important, but numbers makes or breaks a case. Exaggerations do not help anybody.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By ClownPuncher on 7/16/2009 7:22:20 PM , Rating: 2

A great majority of the 100k civilians you are talking about have been killed by fighting between the Sunni and Shia muslims.

It is important to note this, as many people think all of the civilian casualties are directly related to American and allied military. Certainly some are, nobody likes it, but it's nearly impossible to avoid at least SOME civilian casualties.

Maybe your stance is that they would have never been fighting if we hadn't "intervened", well perhaps there is some merit to that, but they have also been fighting for centuries.

Also, the Kurdish massacres weren't even close to 5k deaths. Try closer to 180,000. There were concentration camps, chemical attacks, mass executions, 4000 towns and cities destroyed. Plain genocide.

Saddam can be lumped into the Hitler and Pol Pot evil incarnate club.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By dsx724 on 7/17/2009 10:03:56 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
A great majority of the 100k civilians you are talking about have been killed by fighting between the Sunni and Shia muslims.

Thats like knowing the British forced opium imports on China, but it's the fault of the Chinese for smoking it.

quote:
It is important to note this, as many people think all of the civilian casualties are directly related to American and allied military. Certainly some are, nobody likes it, but it's nearly impossible to avoid at least SOME civilian casualties.

I'm not implying this at all, I'm saying that they died as a direct or indirect result of our invasion.

quote:
Also, the Kurdish massacres weren't even close to 5k deaths. Try closer to 180,000. There were concentration camps, chemical attacks, mass executions, 4000 towns and cities destroyed. Plain genocide. Saddam can be lumped into the Hitler and Pol Pot evil incarnate club.

How easily you forget that we stood by and endorsed Iraq during those periods to counterbalance Iran. We used them to sell our weapons for their oil. Lord of War, ironic isn't it?
Between the three of them, Hitler was the only one not made by us.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 4

Saddam killed over 100,000 in ethnic cleansings. You think he was planning to stop anytime soon? And the US cannot be blamed for them killing each other. No more than the US government is responsible for one of its own citizens killing another.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By dsx724 on 7/16/2009 7:36:08 PM , Rating: 2

The Kurds were fighting on Iran's side during the war. I hardly call that ethnic cleansing when you joined the losing side and get slaughtered after the war. The sad thing is that the Kurds tried it again with the good ole USA behind them only to get slaughtered again.
Under Clinton, we sanctioned Iraq to hell and back knowing that only the people will suffer. We can hide behind our shield of innocence all we want but we are guilty as sin. Destabilizing another country/region through indirect intervention is just as irresponsible if not more than direct intervention.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By knutjb on 7/17/2009 1:59:24 AM , Rating: 2

The Kurds have been fighting for themselves for a very long time. The traditional Kurdish boarder runs through the surrounding countries. Your reference of them is woefully lacking in knowledge of what has happened there and why.

I don't recall anyone claiming we are hiding behind a shield of innocence in regards to war casualties, that's a left wing fallacy. War is never a good thing in and of itself but it is a tool that has to be used to prevent greater casualties than would be encountered if nothing at all were done. Nothing at all has led to more fatalities than war. Hitler and the 6 million, Mao Tse-tung 20 or so million, Stalin 39 million or so, the list goes on.

Saddam was directly giving $25K to Palestinian suicide bombers families. He lied about the WMDs to keep Iran at bay but once the clock on the sanctions were to run out, it was going to be full steam ahead with WMDs. Saddam if let to run wild was certainly ready to do so.

Your ignorance of how the world functions and how much violence and brutality occur without the US is truly amazing. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand denying that well placed fear, yes fear, into oppressive countries has proven to be quite effective in getting them to change their ways.

The problem is when the left has to re-live the 60s and slander the military and the policy in PUBLIC that you have just thrown away any gains from the war. After we invaded Iraq, Libya turned over their nuke program to us, Iran slowed their program to a crawl and various dictators were thinking twice before doing anything crazy. Once the Dems started screaming it's a failure it was back to business as usual. They saw us as a paper tiger not willing to follow through and weak. Sen. Harry Reid said on the senate floor the war was lost and we should retreat, Iraq was a failure.

If the US is so bad try living ANYWHERE in Africa and say what you have here about any of the countries. You won't last very long. So why do you abhor the US so much?

Parent

RE: Oh man

By dsx724 on 7/17/2009 10:28:47 AM , Rating: 2

Criticism is love for a more perfect union. When a large country engages in war, we threaten the safety of all people.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 11:06:37 AM , Rating: 2

Honestly other than not vetoing the bailouts and such, Bush didn't do a whole lot that I think we have to live with too much. I don't regret the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't regret him having a bad relationship with foreign nations because they didn't like the wars. I guess No Child Left Behind is something we'll have to live with unfortunately. The housing bubble sure wasn't his fault.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 7/16/09, Rating: 0

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 11:29:08 AM , Rating: 5

I think the media would like you to believe "most" Americans feel that way. But I don't think the majority of Americans do.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 7/16/09, Rating: -1

RE: Oh man

By keith524 on 7/16/2009 11:41:09 AM , Rating: 2

bingo!

Parent

RE: Oh man

By omnicronx on 7/16/2009 1:57:18 PM , Rating: 1

Of course you don't, you are a blatant republican. (forget the fact of whether or not Bush was a true repub, the average republican would probably agree with Iraq and many things that Bush did)

Why do you think it was so easy for Obama to win? The American people would have voted for Man-Bear-Pig had it promised change over the previous administration. So what exactly are you basing your comment on, as the election results and Obamas platform seem to disagree with your statement.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By onelittleindian on 7/16/2009 2:05:31 PM , Rating: 5

"Why do you think it was so easy for Obama to win? "

Because they average American didn't even realize the Democrats were already in charge of Congress, and that their manipulation of lending policies to "make housing more affordable" led to the bust cycle we're now experiencing. And of course the media, knowing how short memories are, made sure to never remind them.

Of course, the Republicans shouldn't get a free pass either. They could have stood up and fought it, but spent the time when they did have a majority in Congress doing nothing but passing pointless (and rather dangerous) laws to "increase security".

Parent

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 2:35:43 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Why do you think it was so easy for Obama to win?

Because the media blamed everything bad happening on Republicans (completely ignoring the giant hand Democrats had to play in it all) and complete and utter bias in providing election coverage for the issues between Obama and McCain. McCain and Palin were ridiculed for inconsequential things which received all the headline news while issues with Obama's belief and background were completely swept aside. Hell we still don't have an original birth certificate for the man. Even for my f*cking job I had to provide my original birth certificate before I was hired. But apparently you can become President of the United States with a copy.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By omnicronx on 7/16/2009 2:53:37 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Because the media blamed everything bad happening on Republicans (completely ignoring the giant hand Democrats had to play in it all) and complete and utter bias in providing election coverage for the issues between Obama and McCain.

That does not prove your point, all it proves is the people did not agree with Bush's policies, I don't see how it matters how much involvement the Dems had (not saying they did not have any involvment either). If people believed the Media then (8 months ago) what has changed now? Regardless of whether or not the media was the guiding force here, it seems you just admitted that more people in the US did not agree with his policies, whether or not the Dems had a helping hand is irrelevant.

As for your Palin/Mccain argument, I also really doubt any Republican would have won the election, which was the main reason they chose him in the first place, they knew damn well that a classic conservative would not win after the Bush era.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Donkeyshins on 7/16/2009 6:41:15 PM , Rating: 1

Oh dear god...you're a birther? That explains everything.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By DigitalFreak on 7/16/09, Rating: 0

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 12:27:39 PM , Rating: 2

Uh he pushed for investigations into Fannie and Freddie May as well.

I by no means like the man and hope he is replaced by a conservative in 2010, but the housing crisis had nothing to do with him. Fact is banks don't give out bad loans without a gun to their head. And that's what the Community Reinvestment Act was.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Cerin218 on 7/16/2009 2:22:09 PM , Rating: 4

Sen. McCain pointed out that Fannie Mae's regulator reported that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management"

Sen. Obama himself is second on the list of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae since 1989. The Washington Post editorialized on September 19, 2008, “In 2006, [McCain] pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while Mr. Obama was strangely silent.” Perhaps his $126,000 in contributions kept him that way.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton with the Community Reinvestment Act and repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act started the ball rolling on the whole thing. Liberals believe that people who haven't earned things deserve to be given things, often at someone else who has earned things expense. Where as the hated President Bush did things like triple the funding for organizations like Habitat for Humanity that help families help themselves become homeowners through 'sweat equity' and volunteerism in their communities. Help you to help yourself, which I have noticed is big with Republicans.

Banks wouldn't have given loans to people without the ability to be paid back as that just isn't good business. Why do you think they called them NINJA loans? No Income, No Job, no Assets. Then the head of Freddie and Fannie saw how much they could make by "insuring" these bad loans and reassuring the banks that their investments were safe. All the while the current heads of Freddie and Fannie lobbied AGAINST regulation that could have prevented this.

I currently live in a house where the former owner said their mortgage jumped $1000 a month all at once, and another $400 6months after. On a house he paid $230,000 for. Even at a traditional mortgage the monthly payment would be roughly $2200 a month. I bought at $110,000 and a traditional 30yr I am at $939 for a payment. $200 more then I was paying in rent. Not all of the blame is on the government either. If you enter into an ARM you have the responsibility to understand the math.

So bad borrowing and banks being told loan to high risk individuals allowed for the financial meltdown to happen. How anyone with any type of common sense can be a liberal I will never understand.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By clovell on 7/16/2009 12:04:27 PM , Rating: 2

No, the next president won't have to 'deal with it'. The majority of the electorate is now subsidized by the democratic government. The next president who actually gets into office will have to have their backing, and will likely not be able to deal with the consequences and remain viable.

/democracy.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By osalcido on 7/16/09, Rating: -1

RE: Oh man

By michal1980 on 7/16/2009 10:51:38 AM , Rating: 3

typical democrate, inflate costs they hate, defalte their own plans.

P.S.

Two wrongs dont make a right. If Bush spent too much, that doesn't give you a blank check to spend even more.

Then again, never have trillion dollar deficets under bush. Do have them 6 months into obama.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 11:02:05 AM , Rating: 5

Typical idiot.

Please show me where you see that we've spent $10 trillion in Iraq. And last I checked, Democrats voted for that. As well as our current Democrat dominated government continuing and even expanding the war in Afghanistan. And yes, spending to kill terrorists is far more important to me than frivolously spending money on pet projects and feel good legislation designed to entice people to vote for you.

You want to think about our children? How about you tell those idiots up there that you seem to agree with that our children will be the one's paying for all this spending they're doing.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Cerin218 on 7/16/2009 11:15:15 AM , Rating: 5

Funny how people forget that the president went to war with the backing of 29 of 50 Senate Democrats, and 82 of 208 Congressional Democrats. It always annoys me that Democrats feel the Iraq war is completely the Republicans fault. What I find interesting is that under a Republican president we were never threatened on American soil after we invaded Iraq. Yet under a Democrat president we have been threatened with annihilation by a dictator of a small country within reach of the United States with weapons of mass destruction that have actually been demonstrated and aimed at our allies. And the current president did what? Iraq was a response to discourage further action against the United States such as 9/11 and to allow the American people to fight back thus making us feel like we are not powerless. Was it misdirected, yes you can argue that. But I will say I feel our country is far less defended with this new administration. As far as money goes, do you not see the socialistic tendencies of the current administration? explain to me exactly why kids need computers in school? I didn't have one when I went to school. Computers tend to make people lazy and stupid by doing the thinking for them. When you are in school it is a good opportunity to develop logical thought process and reasoning skills without artificial aids like computers. The direction we are going in this country I am beginning to see a true Idiocracy forming.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By omnicronx on 7/16/2009 2:10:31 PM , Rating: 1

Not that I disagree with anything you said, but neither congress nor the senate can declare war on their own. Not to mention while some congressional dems did vote in favor, the majority did not. In other words it would have never gone through had the dems controlled congress. As such if there ever was blame to be placed, it makes sense that the Republicans had control, thus were more responsible.

This all being said, public opinion at the time was to do something about terrorism. Personally I 100% agree with the invasion of Afghanistan, I just don't agree with Iraq.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By onelittleindian on 7/16/2009 2:23:00 PM , Rating: 4

"neither congress nor the senate can declare war on their own"

Huh? Did you mean to say "neither the House nor the Senate can declare war on their own"? Even then, you're still wrong. Art. 1 Sec 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to declare war.

As far as saying "had Democrats been in control the war would have never happened", Democratic support for the Afghanistan invasion was near-unanimous, and even for Iraq, a majority of Democratic Senators supported the invasion.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Cerin218 on 7/16/2009 2:27:00 PM , Rating: 3

I don't necessarily agree with it either, but I tire of the holier than thou liberal attitude that claim it was all George's fault. If the Dem's were truly against it, they should have all voted against it. Even some voting for it means the blame can be shared. If you didn't stop the war, you are just as guilty of starting it.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Spuke on 7/16/2009 3:15:11 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
Not that I disagree with anything you said, but neither congress nor the senate can declare war on their own.

They can't? What country are you from? Congress gives the president AUTHORIZATION to declare war, period. It doesn't work any other way. The President CANNOT go to war without Congressional approval. And Congress gave it to him. As another poster already stated, a good portion of DEMOCRATS voted for war!! I thought at the time, that going into Iraq was stupid and I still feel that way but it is what it is, Congress voted for war, Bush declared war and off we went.

There is soooo much time and energy wasted on these bullshit finger pointing, pissing contests when damn near EVERYONE is at fault here!!! Suck it up and move on!!! Jesus Christ!!

Parent

RE: Oh man

By omnicronx on 7/16/2009 4:48:48 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
Congress gives the president AUTHORIZATION to declare war, period.

So if Congress Authorizes the declaration, who is the only person that can make said declaration?

Authorization!=Declaration

The President Declares, Congress Authorizes PERIOD!.. Neither the House nor the Senate can do so alone, thus my original statement stands.

I'm not even American and I know this.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By daInvincibleGama on 7/16/2009 10:25:16 PM , Rating: 1

That's somewhat irrelevant. There are loopholes that the president can use to send troops into a foreign country ("police action" and such; see Korean War). It's just that he will have to face consequences if he does. There isn't that much precedent for doing that.

Also, grouping people as "Democrats" and "Republicans" in terms of blame also causes confusion because even people have the same party have a big range of opinions about issues. Congress is ultimately about the individual votes of Senators and Representatives. My point is, don't just bitch about stupid decisions. Call/write to your congresspeople and yell at them. They will change their votes if they get enough calls (they do want to get reelected).

Parent

RE: Oh man

By ctodd on 7/17/2009 12:30:22 AM , Rating: 2

"Blame the majority in power." Hmmm... so why hasn't the housing meltdown and the recession not stuck to the Dems who were/are in power?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-age...

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Cerin218 on 7/16/2009 10:58:15 AM , Rating: 2

mdogs444, I disagree. From what I see the liberal democrats have a credit card account limit that is roughly 77% of my remaining untaxed income. Once they run out of that I am not sure what they will do. I am hoping by then we will all have everything they have deemed we need and I will desire nothing of my own free will. Oops, used that liberal swear word "free" again.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By daInvincibleGama on 7/16/2009 10:29:37 PM , Rating: 2

Staunch consevatives haven't been much better for your bottom line. Both sides support pork-barrel spending (unless the media raises a stink on a slow news day). Everyone treats money like its unlimited. Even the people who propose tax cuts usually don't bother with where the money will come from.

My point is that there is tons of govt waste that can be trimmed to save money, but if you want all the services you demand, be prepared to pay for it.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Cerin218 on 7/17/2009 10:36:40 AM , Rating: 3

Umm.. Read the article again. really slowly. Try to understand that the current gov wants to spend 11.2 BILLION dollars to give kids Kindles. Justify that for me. Conservatives may cut taxes, but you need to understand that ultimately the power to generate incomes comes from business creating. This allows them to employ people. They pay you more as they do well allowing you to buy more yourself, thus circulating money. You are right, both parties spend till they are blind, but I would much rather have my tax money going to building and business based projects then to social based provide for everyone direction the liberals seem to go in. Look at health care reform. A Trillion dollars?! So that everyone can get health care? I already have it. Paid for out of my own pocket supplemented by my employer. If you don't have it, get a job that does. If you don't have the skills, go get them. There are tons of opportunities for people to advance themselves if they would just apply themselves. I am 35 currently in school for another degree so that I can make more money and buy the things I want. Why should have have to pay to drag others who aren't willing to to the same? Learn to do for yourself before waiting for it to be done for you. A kindle for every school kid?? How about use that 11.2 billion towards the national debt and buy some America back from China.

In the end, I don't need government to provide as many services as it believes I need. Even after asking it, it doesn't focus on the ones important to me anyway.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By ccmfreak2 on 7/16/2009 2:33:22 PM , Rating: 2

Come on now, this is about the CHILDREN. How else are children going to get excited about education? How else are they going to become literate. It's not like there are places they can go inside their community that they can freely go to and practice their reading. I mean, they need a large stock of different writings that they can access... oh wait, I forgot about the library.

Well, how else are kindegardeners and first graders going to get excited about reading if we don't put a delicate, expensive electronic device without any vibrant colors in front of them. Yeah, that's it - its the colors in most books that distract them from reading and learning to read... or something like that. Bottom line, we NEED to spend the money - its for the CHILDREN!

</sarcasm>

Parent

RE: Oh man

By taisingera on 7/16/2009 7:30:02 PM , Rating: 2

The country should NEVER elect a guy who doesn't have money of his own as is the case with Obama. He sees all the money we pay in taxes and he thinks he can spend it recklessly. Actually he is a lot like most Americans, buying anything in sight that they want, regardless of the debt they get into. He is irresponsible and a bit scary in terms of the people he is appointing to these silly "czar" positions.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By AntiM on 7/16/2009 12:38:20 PM , Rating: 2

What good is a Kindle if the child doesn't know how to READ? This is a stupid idea. Luckily it's just a proposal and hopefully won't go far. What do these people do, sit around in some kind of think tank dreaming up ways to waste money? I can see it now,.. little Johnny can't read because he dropped his Kindle and broke it. Now he's a menace to society.
They can't think of any better way to spend 11 billion?

We're all screwed. Has anyone seriously thought about moving to a different country? Is the grass any greener somewhere in Europe?

Parent

RE: Oh man

By omnicronx on 7/16/2009 2:19:56 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
What good is a Kindle if the child doesn't know how to READ?

Not that I agree with this proposal at all but are you a moron? Did you pop out of the womb with a 5th grade reading level? Improving reading skills is as easy as.. wait for it.. READING!

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Scabies on 7/16/2009 3:08:53 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Did you pop out of the womb with a 5th grade reading level?

I know I did...

Parent

RE: Oh man

By AntiM on 7/16/2009 4:07:19 PM , Rating: 2

Oh.. so you think that giving a child a fancy electronic device is going to instantly make that child a more competent reader? NO, it won't. 11 billion dollars could be better spent by hiring more (better) teachers, tutors, and more individualized help for children that are having difficulty. If a child is a poor reader, giving them a Kindle isn't going to make them a better reader at all. The whole idea is ridiculous. Half of these things will be lost or broken within 6 months. And I'm the moron?

Parent

RE: Oh man

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 4:13:16 PM , Rating: 2

On a positive note ebay will go crazy as several million people suddenly have a Kindle available for sale.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By omnicronx on 7/16/2009 5:06:00 PM , Rating: 2

As I said I don't agree with the bill. On the other hand I do not really agree with your other statements either. It comes down to lack of resources, many schools do not even have a proper library or reading tools in the first place. That being said, if even a small fraction of that money was put into giving schools more books and learning materials, it would probably do more good than anything you mention. Half the time we do not even know that our kids lack reading comprehension until it is too late, so tutors and individualized help or even 'more teachers' is not going to help in most situations.

I was not meaning to offend you, I just did not understand your first comment in the slightest. The Kindle in theory could be a great tool, but because of the price and other reasons others have mentioned (they will break etc) its just not feasible. I do agree giving each kid a kindle makes absolutely no sense and is a gross waste of resources, but.. without good reading tools it is no wonder that our children are falling between the cracks.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By mindless1 on 7/17/2009 4:23:06 AM , Rating: 2

There is no lack of "good reading tools". Written text is available everywhere, a child does not need some special "tool" to learn to read, if anything it's the opposite that all the gimmicks are just distracting from the basic fundamentals of picking up anything with writing and having at it.

We might put some blame on teachers as well but what do you expect without raising their salaries, it causes many higher caliber people to go into different lines of work instead of teaching, then there is the sad reality that just because someone "wants" to be a teacher, even if they pass through their college training, that doesn't necessarily make them fit to BE a teacher. Memorizing != competency.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Cerin218 on 7/17/2009 10:42:28 AM , Rating: 3

So what you are saying is if we spent more then $24,000 starting salary for a teacher we could probably get teachers to begin with? How many of your friends say their dream job is teaching? I love how we will pay some moron $100,000,000 to dribble a ball, and pay next to nothing to teachers and expect this country to be some sort of smart. I even know of some teachers that have to buy their own supplies for the kids because the district doesn't have enough money. How about we use 11.2 billion dollars to meet our basic education needs before we buy toys for children.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By Skott on 7/16/2009 3:23:07 PM , Rating: 2

Amazon is behind this as well I'm thinking since they have said last year that they wanted to get into American colleges and universities. They wanted to get a product that would allow all students the ability to read all the books and manuscripts currently required for all courses curriculum off of a Kindle model. Now there is talk of getting a Kindle to every K-12 student as well? Yeah, I can see Amazon lobbying heavily here. Imagine if Amazon could corner that market? Have as many Kindles as there are laptops and possibly more? Serious money to be made in that market if they could make it happen.

Parent

RE: Oh man

By ccmfreak2 on 7/16/2009 4:35:04 PM , Rating: 3

And if the Government is forking over the cash for this program, then they have no reason to lower the price for the first couple of years of this program. Why should they when they know the devices are going to be bought either way? So, that $80 target is quite a ways off when they've already talked about spending $11.2B at $200 each. I'm sure this is a deal that Amazon would gladly accept.

I still don't see how the Kindle is so revolutionary to be worth this kind of spending.

Parent

And why can't the concept

By tarpon on 7/16/2009 10:20:45 AM , Rating: 2

Of buy your own be the rule?

I doubt anybody learns anything from all this computer in every pot crap, it destroys reading comprehension, lowers math skills and destroys logical thinking. How else do you explain the USA is 20 out of 20 in education.

Rip all the computers out of schools.

RE: And why can't the concept

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 10:48:58 AM , Rating: 2

I don't think we need computers out of schools but yes kids aren't learning how to do math. They're learning how to use the computer to do math for them. Calculators weren't allowed in the classroom in middle school and high school except in science courses where you were dealing with extremely large numbers.

It's pretty sad today how many kids can't do basic math. If you can't calculate the sales tax of a $5.00 purchase in your head and come up with the total, you shouldn't be out of school. Much less allowed to vote.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By Cerin218 on 7/16/2009 11:22:22 AM , Rating: 2

Try and get the teenager at the local gas station to calculate the change from a dollar in their head. God forbid they accidentally type $20.00 for your $9.67 purchase instead if $10.00 that you gave them. I actually had someone call a manager because they couldn't figure out what to do.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By Mint on 7/16/09, Rating: -1

RE: And why can't the concept

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 2:42:09 PM , Rating: 3

If a math aptitude test says "4+5=?" anyone can see all of those symbols on a calculator and punch them in. That requires no "figuring out". If you have a TI-89 which can do calculus, knowing what to punch into the calculator doesn't mean you know calculus.

My guess is that if you have this view, you don't f*ckin know math.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By clovell on 7/16/2009 3:41:52 PM , Rating: 3

Hence why I'm a strong proponent of word problems. That and because they're the perfect antidote to those whiny brats who always say, 'When are we ever gonna use this?'

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By ccmfreak2 on 7/16/2009 4:43:29 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
If you have a TI-89 which can do calculus, knowing what to punch into the calculator doesn't mean you know calculus.

Ain't that the truth. And now there is another software out their called "Mathmatica" that is suppose to help students learn calculus - if you learn the programming to use Mathmatica first. I was forced to use it in my calculus class, didn't learn calculus, barely figured out how to use the software, but I'm a computer programmer. God help the students who don't understand programming. Same concept as the calculator, but much less user friendly.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By danrien on 7/16/2009 1:49:21 PM , Rating: 2

I find your and most people's definition of "basic math" to be lacking. What you're defining is arithmetic, which is basically teaching a student how to be a calculator.

I have no qualms against somebody using a calculator to add 2 and 2, as long as the person using that calculator understands what adding means.

I really find it unnecessary to teach kids multiplication tables endlessly when calculators do it just as well. As long as they understand what the function is, getting a perfect result in your head isn't absolutely necessary.

Chances are, you've screwed up a sales tax calculation from time to time. A calculator, given the correct input and function, will output the correct answer everytime .

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By onelittleindian on 7/16/2009 2:09:43 PM , Rating: 2

"I really find it unnecessary to teach kids multiplication tables endlessly when calculators do it just as well"

I find it unnecessary to teach kids to add also, when calculators do that better also. Why waste time counting 2+3 on your fingers, when you can push a button for the answer?

I also find it unnecessary to teach kids to write with pen and paper, when a keyboard does it so much better. While we're at it, why waste time teaching them to read? Software to automatically read out text is now widely available.

For that matter, why teach them any science or history facts either? Just give them a five minute course on Wikipedia searches, and tell them to reference that whenever they need a fact.

Gosh, what idiots we are for actually having kids spend years going to school!

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By Cerin218 on 7/16/2009 2:33:00 PM , Rating: 3

Like my teachers always told me, what are you going to do when there isn't a calculator or computer available? If you haven't developed the logical thought process on your own, you will fail.

As far as the calculator always giving the right answer, that will always be countered by the GIGO effect. Garbage In, Garbage Out. I can tell you from experience the idiots I work with make entry errors all the time. Your info is only as good as the person entering it. Calculators and computes can't fix that. They should be tools to supplement your brain, not replace it.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By onelittleindian on 7/16/2009 2:39:40 PM , Rating: 2

I once encountered a person (an adult, no less) who tried to use her calculator to find 7% tax rate on a $200 purchase. Of course, any normal person could do that in their head instantly, but she used the percent function wrong, got a result that was actually LARGER than the $200 she started with, and didn't even have a good enough grasp of the basic principles to realize she'd made a mistake.

THAT'S why to teach people to do it without a calculator.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By danrien on 7/16/2009 3:45:42 PM , Rating: 2

Aye, just as if they're putting garbage into their head, and don't what addition is, they're going to get garbage out. Ultimately, you will have the same result.

I'm not talking about not teaching a kid how to perform the function of addition, I'm against people who feel that a smart individual is one who can perform a relatively simple function in a short amount of time, and with no errors, and then feel that that is what is wrong with our education system. Most Electrical Engineering professors I've had often make simple mathematical errors - and these are some of the smartest mathematical minds I've personally encounter.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By danrien on 7/16/2009 3:39:56 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I also find it unnecessary to teach kids to write with pen and paper, when a keyboard does it so much better. While we're at it, why waste time teaching them to read? Software to automatically read out text is now widely available.

This has no direct analog to what I stated. I'm not talking about not teaching kids what addition is - I'm talking about the uselessness in making them write out a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,etc.... While it is useful to know how to write these letters out, the amount of drills that it requires to write a perfect 'a' is very time consuming, and ultimately, worthless. That's why not a large amount of time is done teaching a student the basics of writing letters, but rather dips them into putting something they already naturally do - language - and writing out language on paper.

Making a student count 1,2,3,4,5 and then telling them that is the same as 2+3 for a year before allowing them to just add - which is actually a natural thought process that even babies are instinctively capable of (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/fivemonthold-... - is ridiculous.

Similarly, making them do 3*5 and then 5*3 multiple times is just as ridiculous and useless. Teaching them that the word multiplication is similar to saying "i doubled this" or "i tripled this" is useful, however. Humans are terrible at being accurate computers - that's why we have digital computers. And why being able to recite your multiplication tables is ultimately, in the long run, an exercise in futility.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By onelittleindian on 7/16/2009 3:50:45 PM , Rating: 2

"the amount of drills that it requires to write a perfect 'a' is very time consuming, and ultimately, worthless."

Learning to write is ultimately worthless? Wow. words cannot express my sadness at realizing someone above the age of 6 would actually believe this.

"Similarly, making them do 3*5 and then 5*3 multiple times is just as ridiculous and useless"

I'd explain why this isn't so, but I fear you're late for your job at McDonalds. Maybe we can take this up when you get back?

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By danrien on 7/16/2009 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 3

Learning to write perfect symbols is worthless.

And oh, sorry, I have to prepare for my final semester in Electrical Engineering. Sorry again.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By clovell on 7/16/2009 4:07:26 PM , Rating: 2

EE, eh? Surely you realize then, that the commutative property is important, and is not to be taken lightly / for granted?

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By danrien on 7/16/2009 4:18:11 PM , Rating: 2

Yes it is important. However, making a student do the following exercise is a waste of time:

1*2 = ?
2*1 = ?
2*3 = ?
3*2 = ?
3*4 = ?
4*3 = ?

This teaches them nothing of commutativity, unless you make that student do the exercise before giving them the definition or the word commutative (or even telling them that a word exists for that function), which then lets the student find out and affirm what they probably already knew. Still, too much time doing this is still a waste of time.

Giving them a definition - commutativity - and then telling them, go use it, is confusing. You make arithmetic sound like magic, when it's really just a natural thought process.

You don't teach a student what a preposition is until probably the 4th or 5th grade, and yet most students are probably using them before that time, with no prodding from a teacher.

A better question would be, how many ways can you achieve the number 6 from two numbers with multiplication. That would teach commutativity, while also allowing a student to do something naturally.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 4:15:07 PM , Rating: 2

God I pity the company that hires you.

Your future boss: "Is that a square root of 3 or 8?"

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By danrien on 7/16/2009 4:20:16 PM , Rating: 2

I'm sure my boss will be really worried about whether he can read my handwriting or not. Last interview I had, no one asked for a handwriting test to be performed.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By danrien on 7/16/2009 3:55:48 PM , Rating: 2

and actually, considering the plethora of keyboard driven systems - typewriters, and computers, for that matter, it does seem really rather useless to spend large amounts of time writing out papers. Good handwriting was never terribly useful, except for those that were good at it, and felt that it was necessary to function.

But I bet if you ask most authors, they would admit they have terrible handwriting, even after all those writing exercises.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By clovell on 7/16/2009 4:09:20 PM , Rating: 2

Good handwriting is something that, sadly, Pharmicists probably appreciate more than anyone else.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By danrien on 7/16/2009 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2

And is an area where a keyboard driven computer, along with either a real-life signature or a digital signature of some sort, along with a secure connection between the doctor and the pharmacist would be much more useful.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 2:47:04 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah nevermind that software can have bugs. Even basic calculators.

quote:
I really find it unnecessary to teach kids multiplication tables endlessly when calculators do it just as well.

How about so that you don't need a calculator for simple math? You should be able to add up a bill and calculate tax and a total in your head quickly. If you never practice it, you won't learn it.

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By danrien on 7/16/2009 3:57:38 PM , Rating: 2

This is useful for you - but personal choice is personal choice. If somebody wishes to carry around a calculator for simple tasks, so they can have their minds on other tasks, then why would you, of all people, question that decision?

Parent

RE: And why can't the concept

By mindless1 on 7/17/2009 4:31:02 AM , Rating: 2

... because the brain needs exercise, dumbing down tasks makes a person literally dumb. They are not putting their minds on other tasks, they're DUMB and can barely figure out how to work a calculator if they can't even do basic tasks like multiplying small numbers in their head. Don't think they have some great thoughts with the free brain time from using a calculator because a dumb person's free time is more destructive than constructive.

Parent

Describes this perfectly

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 9:26:59 AM , Rating: 4

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

If people want a kindle, they can buy it their f*cking selves.

RE: Describes this perfectly

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 7/16/2009 9:31:09 AM , Rating: 4

I actually agree with you. There's nothing wrong with textbooks in K-12. You don't pay for them anyway (at least at public schools -- or at least I didn't have to pay for them in school, I don't know how it is now).

I could possibly see this in college where text book costs are outrageous. But then again, pay for it yourself!

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 9:57:13 AM , Rating: 4

I'd be fine with being able to write the purchase of the Kindle off on your taxes. But my tax dollars going to pay for Kindles when I don't have one and would like one? No.

The way Democrats are going we might as well get rid of money and everything is free for everyone. When the killings end as people fight for the nice stuff, let me know.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By TSS on 7/16/2009 10:47:12 AM , Rating: 2

the kindle? heh, no no no no, not "the" kindle.

http://rickyopaterny.com/blog/2009/02/10/the-amazo...

you can be damned sure 1 kid will need several. so add a couple of billion to the estimated cost.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By ClownPuncher on 7/16/2009 11:57:42 AM , Rating: 2

What I don't get is who exactly thought it was a good idea to let kids take home expensive electronics(rhetorical)? Kids tend to be pretty hard on things. It's alot of money to spend on stuff we all know is going to get trashed anyway.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By clovell on 7/16/2009 12:11:10 PM , Rating: 2

Oh no, FIT, I wouldn't even go that far. This trash has got to stop. No writeoffs and no voucherss for Kindles. My tax dollars already pay for a library, folks - get off your asses and walk there if you want to read.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 12:32:12 PM , Rating: 2

Well I meant if schools started requiring a Kindle for classes. Which wouldn't be such a bad thing since it would eliminate the heavy textbooks kids gotta lug around.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By choadenstein on 7/16/2009 1:07:33 PM , Rating: 1

Actually,

Considering the current obesity rates in the US, I think lighter backpacks is the LAST thing we should be giving our fat ass kids.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 2:37:56 PM , Rating: 2

Heh. Good point. Lemme bust out the whip and get those kids to lugging.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By Donkeyshins on 7/16/2009 6:51:56 PM , Rating: 2

Now that is a completely sensable comment. Bravo!

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By SenilePlatypus on 7/16/2009 12:44:05 PM , Rating: 2

I don't think this is as outrageous as originally perceived... A quick googling shows that the cost of text books per year is relatively similar [K-12 - 8.1 billion (2006)].

I imagine the costs of education material distribution (text) would drop significantly thereafter...

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By Oregonian2 on 7/16/2009 11:46:57 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I actually agree with you. There's nothing wrong with textbooks in K-12. You don't pay for them anyway (at least at public schools -- or at least I didn't have to pay for them in school, I don't know how it is now).

Exactly! And for the same reason having a Kindle for each K-12 student would cost the Federal government nothing whatsoever! That's paid for by the local school districts, and so any mandate by the Feds for Kindles would be paid by local school districts.

And in any case, I can just see a Kindergarten student with a Kindle. Not!

:-)

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By mindless1 on 7/17/2009 4:34:50 AM , Rating: 2

It is impossible for many local school districts to buy kindles, simply no money in the budget to operate as they already are with lesser expense. It is necessarily going to be federal money IF it were to happen.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By Oregonian2 on 7/17/2009 10:29:17 AM , Rating: 2

Those local school districts have more money than the Feds do. The Feds are running more than a Trillion in the hole just for this year -- local school districts are at least usually running w/o a loss (even if at a lower than desired level).

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By jdietz on 8/6/2009 9:38:03 PM , Rating: 2

Why don't they use more paperback textbooks, especially for college. I am no longer in college, but my continuing education Japanese class opted for the $120 (per book, hardcover) Nakama series rather than the Genki series ($45 per book, paperback). Quality is about the same IMO, after looking at both. It is probably just what they are used to using, but... If it was really about the students they would switch.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By Cront on 7/16/2009 9:31:20 AM , Rating: 2

Tax dollars hard at work. Surely there are more important things.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By SublimeSimplicity on 7/16/2009 9:39:36 AM , Rating: 2

I understand that there could be some theoretical economic benefits, like no shipping costs, less wear and tear, updated/corrected text, etc.

If these benefits were real, why wouldn't schools that are well funded locally be going to them? Why would they need the magically free the federal government would provide to make it a good idea?

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By callmeroy on 7/16/2009 10:14:35 AM , Rating: 2

I agree....

heh...its bad enough 2/3rds of my taxes go to funding public schools when I have no kids myself. Now I have to watch my tax dollars fund largely already SPOILED kids (do I really have to explain how today's children are largely spoiled punk brats? (of course a few are exceptions -- but afraid not the majority)) in getting e-reading devices? I don't even have one and wouldn't mind getting one, but I refuse to pay the current prices for them. But sure why not -- raise my already high taxes, waste even more billions upon billions on such ridiculous things....

The schools want the kids to have these devices --- start the negotiations with Amazon for special payment plans to offer the kids and thier parents and use the old "since we'll be placing a large order -- what kind of discount can you offer us" strategy.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By CigarSmokedByClinton on 7/16/2009 10:30:36 AM , Rating: 2

You're assuming they'll raise taxes. Why would they? They can just create the $11+B out of thin air! Its a win-win!

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By Ananke on 7/16/2009 6:31:55 PM , Rating: 2

Having no kids yourself is your problem only. Seems you are worthless for the society :). At this point the only reason for a normal society to tolerate your existance is you being taxed. In the nature, i.e. free economy, you should've been eaten or killed by now :):)....sorry, that's the truth. Essentially, as close America is to unregulated economy, as much more taxes you will need to pay.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By callmeroy on 7/17/2009 8:31:51 AM , Rating: 2

lol...well hopefully we aren't that close to eating each other just yet --- as I wonder how clean folks are these days..with the fad circulating largely thanks to hollywood that we don't have to brush our hair or shave and oh we can all dress like bums now -- because that's cool.

Parent

RE: Describes this perfectly

By HeavyB on 7/16/2009 10:41:58 AM , Rating: 2

As much as it pains me to say it, I gotta agree with you on this one. 11 billion bucks?! How much campaign $$ has Jeff Bozos donated to the democrats lately?

Parent

Waste

By Ristogod on 7/16/2009 9:30:52 AM , Rating: 2

How in the world did I ever make it through grade school without such a device? The impact of such device not being present in my early life has definitely taken its toll on my well-being. I could of had a good job and successful life. Instead I eek by as a lowly .NET Applications Developer.

This truly is a well thought out solution. Stupid kids = waste money on electronic devices that do the work for them. Win-Win scenario for all.

RE: Waste

By Spivonious on 7/16/2009 10:38:42 AM , Rating: 3

And don't stop at Kindles.

I never had a laptop, had a graphing calculator only because I was in the advanced math class and felt like having my own (the school had ones you could use during class).

Who is convincing politicians that our kids need this technology to take home? I agree that a Kindle-like device would save schools lots of money in the long run, but that's only assuming book publishers don't raise the cost of "e-books" to compensate for the lost revenue from paper books.

Parent

RE: Waste

By Donkeyshins on 7/16/2009 6:56:52 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I never had a laptop, had a graphing calculator only because I was in the advanced math class and felt like having my own (the school had ones you could use during class).

Hell, we weren't allowed to use calculators until high school. And even then they were the crappy red LED based ones...

Parent

Uh, what about Color? What about Graphics?

By Reznick on 7/16/2009 10:07:41 AM , Rating: 3

I love the Kindle for reading books, but textbooks? Whatsupwiddat? The device frankly sucks at displaying graphics, and of course your choices of color are, uh, black and white? The larger Kindle format would provide a slightly better graphics display, but it is still limited by its current display technology and cost.

Children's textbooks are full of color and images, and the ability to quickly flip back and forth as needed is really important. These are 'reference' books. For reading novels and articles where you read from start to finish, the Kindle is fine, but the notion it would replace textbooks and allow quick access to information is laughable.

I think for kids, the Kindle would be a great platform for reading books such as allowing them to try classics which are very cheap if not free. But textbooks for K-12? Kidding, right?

RE: Uh, what about Color? What about Graphics?

By Bateluer on 7/16/2009 11:17:47 AM , Rating: 2

The Kindle DX has a larger screen. I would expect color and image support in future revisions of the Kindle line.

The price of the Kindle 2 did just drop to 299, for what that's worth.

Parent

RE: Uh, what about Color? What about Graphics?

By callmeroy on 7/17/2009 8:48:19 AM , Rating: 2

I made the same argument with my co-workers yesterday on this issue --- unless there is full color and good graphics (plus a decent screen size) I don't think its much of a solution to fully replace text books.

One of my co-workers who apparently states he's done research says a full color 10 inch ebook reader is over a grand right now. He already owns a kindle btw, says its fantastic for novels.

I've done next to no research on e-readers because the pricing is too out of control to even seriously consider for me, and I don't research products I can't afford (or could but refuse to pay that much for them).

$300 is a start for a lower price on the new one, but for the majority to rush out and get a kindle, you have to cut that price in half....$150 and lower and Kindle is in line to be a household name....

Parent

School Supplies

By just4U on 7/16/2009 9:36:27 AM , Rating: 2

When I was a kid each year we had to buy school supplies, clothing, shoes ect. Coming from a very poor family these were still considered necessities so our parents made sure we had them.

If school boards accross the country made it so that these Kindles were a requirement, parents would buy them. For that to happen though they would have to come down substantially in price. I don't quite understand why such a simple device is so expensive anyway. There are computers out there cheaper then that with color screens after all.

Their looking to get rich off the go green croud and milking it for all it's worth.. but if it's a practical device then get the damn price down to something reasonable so people will actually start to buy them. The governement doesn't need to be forking out billions to make sure kids have a overpriced novelty item.

RE: School Supplies

By FITCamaro on 7/16/2009 9:58:18 AM , Rating: 2

I believe the screen is expensive to manufacture. But I'm sure they're making a pretty penny on each one. Nothing wrong with that though.

Parent

RE: School Supplies

By just4U on 7/16/2009 3:17:14 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah but by keeping that price up there.. that's all it will be is a novelty item. If you want people to adopt it then find a way to make it cheaper. I've seen them, they don't look like they should be expensive at all.

Parent

Essential Tools?

By KeithP on 7/16/2009 12:21:42 PM , Rating: 2

A graphing calculator is NOT an "essential tool" with the possible exception of certain college majors. For high school or less, an argument could be made that even a basic calculator is not essential, although certainly useful to check math homework.

It boggles my mind that people are so willing to spend billions of dollars on hardware with the goal to improvement education when all that is really needed is more teachers, properly equipped classrooms and more accountability from parents and children.

-KeithP

RE: Essential Tools?

By DOSGuy on 7/16/2009 9:07:54 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
However, across America many children lack many essential educational tools, such as a graphing calculator.

I've never owned a graphing calculator. In my day (the late 90s and early 00s), if we needed a graph, we drew it ourselves! We didn't even use them in college. If they aren't essential in college (in my case, a 3 year computer science program), how could they be essential for children???

Parent

RE: Essential Tools?

By mindless1 on 7/17/2009 4:41:24 AM , Rating: 2

For some students a graphing calculator really is an "essential tool" if for no other reason than the Calculus teacher required we purchase one... and this wasn't in the last couple decades either.

Parent

But it's for our children!

By deanx0r on 7/16/2009 9:31:08 AM , Rating: 2

Where was the kindle when I was still in school?

I like the idea as far saving many children's back with the weight saving the technology brings. But last time I checked, books in College have always cost me a fortune between $500 and $900. I doubt publishers will give a serious price break, and lets not forget you probably won't be able to get any kind of resale value. Doh!

RE: But it's for our children!

By The0ne on 7/16/2009 10:00:22 AM , Rating: 2

I honestly don't see why this and laptops are needed in classrooms, let alone grade school. I'm already sick and tire of my nephews and nieces from grade school through college stuck on their desktop or laptop using myspace and facebook. What a utter waste of time.

If the computers are better controlled that would be great but then that would also suck and defeat the purpose of having a computer to begin with :)

Parent

Lack of graphing calculators?

By Fox5 on 7/16/2009 10:04:33 AM , Rating: 3

How can there be a lack of graphing calculators?
1. They should treat them like books, accumulate a few every year and keep them forever basically.
2. That's partly TI's fault for having a monopoly on educational graphing calculators and never lowering the cost.
3. At the very least, just about every college student will own a graphing calculator. There's not much use after all the math classes are finished, why not donate them? Heck, I'd gladly donate my TI-89 TI.

lobbying

By mattclary on 7/16/2009 10:48:09 AM , Rating: 3

I would be willing to bet this idea originated with a lobbyist for Amazon accompanied by some SWAG.

I propose.

By Lastfreethinker on 7/16/2009 11:33:32 AM , Rating: 3

That we launch a Moron in every level of government Initiative. It would be free to start but cost us billions in stupid ideas, ear marks, pork and flawed programs that have ruined other countries health care and promoted more inequality throughout the world.

I like this idea, but....

By SniperWulf on 7/16/2009 11:49:16 AM , Rating: 3

it isn't practical by any stretch of the imagination. Have you seen some of these kids' DS? Most I've seen are all beat up and scratched to hell. And most kids I know, love their DS. Aren't these things pretty delicate? How are they gonna handle replacements??

Kindle

By Yaos on 7/16/2009 11:50:52 AM , Rating: 3

They could at least use a good reader, the Kindle is horrible, the screen is horrible, the interface is horrible, there is nothing good about it.

dear god

By invidious on 7/16/2009 9:27:47 AM , Rating: 2

How could this possibly be worth it? Graphing calculators and computers are useful tools that people will use later in life. A kindle is a POS replacement for paper. There is no need for this kind of wreckless spending.

Something sturdier

By nafhan on 7/16/2009 10:11:25 AM , Rating: 2

Considering the price of textbooks, e-readers aren't a terrible idea. However, I have some caveats with this particular bill.
The biggest issue is the Kindle itself. It's really not optimal for this usage. Something along the lines of a mil-spec e-reader without any wireless connection would make a lot more sense. Store the OS and textbooks on a flash card that gets swapped out every summer, and it would be low maintenance, too.
Along with using a sturdier device, a mandatory, refundable $200-$300 deposit paid by parents could go a LONG way towards keeping the devices in good shape.
If these things cost $500 a piece and lasted a few years, I'd imagine they'd pay for themselves while allowing students to carry more books at the same time.

Gotta love Irony

By atlmann10 on 7/16/2009 1:15:12 PM , Rating: 2

Well the idea of free Kindles is an absolute BS idea in this form I want to address something else. That would be the idea of a E-reader device in a student platform.

Think about it this way when you go to school they (schools) want to charge ridiculous pricing for books. You can generally buy e-books rather cheep (I actually buy used books generally for 1/10th or less of what the school tries to get).

The thing with an e-reader like a kindle or quite a few others coming to market is this, you can buy multiple books cheap and an e-reader holds many books as well. SO in an e-campus format you can carry all your books in one little device.

The advantages are multiple the first being convenience. The next would be real prices which would be significantly less than buying all your books during an academic bachelors degree program. I can't wait till someone releases a color e-ink for them. But also you can get books to read, newspapers, magazines etc delivered or dl'd any time you want.

A free e-book is BS but I think the e-book concept as well as realization is this will be a very effective and changing device in general.

Gotta love Irony

By atlmann10 on 7/16/2009 1:15:19 PM , Rating: 2

Well the idea of free Kindles is an absolute BS idea in this form I want to address something else. That would be the idea of a E-reader device in a student platform.

Think about it this way when you go to school they (schools) want to charge ridiculous pricing for books. You can generally buy e-books rather cheep (I actually buy used books generally for 1/10th or less of what the school tries to get).

The thing with an e-reader like a kindle or quite a few others coming to market is this, you can buy multiple books cheap and an e-reader holds many books as well. SO in an e-campus format you can carry all your books in one little device.

The advantages are multiple the first being convenience. The next would be real prices which would be significantly less than buying all your books during an academic bachelors degree program. I can't wait till someone releases a color e-ink for them. But also you can get books to read, newspapers, magazines etc delivered or dl'd any time you want.

A free e-book is BS but I think the e-book concept as well as realization is this will be a very effective and changing device in general.

a big push

By stilltrying on 7/16/2009 1:44:16 PM , Rating: 2

this is nothing more than trying to buy america into communism/socialism/fascism. well americans will fall for it thinking it is free but as we know nothing is free and eventually the giving stops and each gets what each needs according to their ability. this may seem like a fine thing to do now, wooohooo free stuff but it is simply a underhanded push to buy americans into socialism even though we already have every plank in the socialist manifesto currently

Ignoring the fact that you are giving money to a specific manufacturer.

By SiliconAddict on 7/16/2009 3:20:47 PM , Rating: 2

If you want to do this let everyone bid on a contract. Not hand it out. And frankly there are better things to spend money on then an e-book reader at this point in time. Maybe in 10 years when they are $10 a pop. right now hell no.

Kindle in the hands of kids

By Brad777 on 7/16/2009 5:12:46 PM , Rating: 2

While I'm not sure I advocate this proposal at this time, there is something that not a single person here has mentioned. Perhaps no one that has yet commented actually owns a Kindle.

But one Kindle would put literally over a 1000 free books in the hands of one child. Talk about access to reading! English and reading teachers all over the US would rejoice in the fact that every student in their class would actually have access to books. No longer would kids have to "share" their books. No longer would economics affect whether a child could purchase the book or not. Free books are available for all levels of reading comprehension and thus the kindle would be useful from grade 1 through college.

It is true that the kindle at this time is not the best for textbooks. But in a few years I can see that changing as people embrace electronic reading devices. And e-Ink is currently the closest thing to come to ink and paper...because it actually is ink (albeit encapusulated in a magnetic/charged sphere).

Instead of being at the bottom of the barrel in reading and comprehension for developed nations, we could actually get better. An amazing concept!

Pfft

By eldardude on 7/16/2009 5:23:40 PM , Rating: 2

Who uses a graphing calculator anyway? Learn to draw a sketch by hand! That's how we did it once upon a time.

Why promote Kindle? Laptops make more sense, if they MUST spend.

By INReader on 7/17/2009 7:37:04 AM , Rating: 2

I'm not saying they should provide every kid with anything, but if they must, right now netbook laptop prices are about $298.00, comparable to Kindle's $299.00. They're lightweight, and the kids can use them for more than just reading. I'm typing on one right now, in fact. It has a screen area as large as Kindle's standard reader, and if you hit the F11 key, you can use all of that screen to read.

Textbooks can just as easily be formatted to be read on computers, and it's fairer to all levels of students than allowing Kindle to have a monopoly. Plus, as I said, the students can do all their other school related tasks on a netbook or notebook of any brand.

Amazing!

By Aeros on 7/20/2009 11:18:05 PM , Rating: 2

So much uproar about spending, and debt when it's for something other than killing brown people.

How 'bout we take all the money wasted on fighter jets tanks, aircraft carriers, atomic subs and invest that in education.

Hell, I'd even settle for 10% of that spedning - which is likly billions more than this fruity kindle thing.

FFS people, stop being partisan sheeple, the money here is a drop in the bucket compared to tax cuts given to oil refineries, or for that matter farm subsidies.

The debt argument is fail as no social program comes close to the wastes of money currently on the books.