Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:July:24 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/7/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:38795 Activity:very high
7/23    50% of Americans think that the the Atomic bombing of Japan
        was a bad idea:
        Take the poll again in another 20 years and most of the people alive
        during WWII will be dead, then it will be 70%.  I'll bet in 1945 that
        number was a lot lower.  What percentage of Japanese think
        bombing Pearl Harbor was a good idea?  -ax
        Put that in your pipe and smoke it emarkp -ausman
        \_ My anonymous troll has a name! -emarkp
        \_ On the flip side, this is what Japanese think of the Pearl
           Harbor invasion:
           \_ The exhibit gets some key points wrong, but there does
              seem to be some indication that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor
              to happen despite some knowledge of a Japanese attack
              in order to rally America behind a war that he WANTED
              to join.
              \_ Oh gawd, the exhibit fucking sucks.
              \_ Oh gawd, the exhibit fucking lies.
           \_ Yeah, and the FDR forced Japan to commit Nanjing Massacare,
              atrocities of Unit 731, and all the other good stuff it did to
              other Asian countries.  Oh, or was it the Chang Kai-Shek of the
              Chinese govt that forced Japan to do those things?  Also, Japan
              was already at war with Britain even before Pearl Harbor.  FDR
              could have used the same excuse to declare war on Japan
        \_ 50% of Americans voted for W.
           \_ That, and the below bit about "not being able to find Japan on
              a map" are my sentiments exactly.  I'm glad someone's using their
              brains tonight.  -John
        \_ What about Americans who were actually around back then?
        \_ 50% of Americans can't find Japan on a map.  The other 50% don't
           know what a map is.  Thanks to the teacher's unions for the
           quality public schools that brought us here.
           \_ thanks to the california senate which doesn't allocate enough
              funds to the public school system and the people who voted for
              prop 37.
              \_ Schools are the biggest line item in the budget and CA
                 teachers are among the highest paid anywhere. There's money.
                 It's not a money issue.
                 \_ Even if it was the case the CA teachers are the highest
                    paid in the country, why would anyone want to teach
                    in CA? You wouldn't be able to make a decent living.
                 \_ Isn't California like 43rd on average spending per
                    pupil? Of course it is about the money. You can't
                    totally scrimp on spending like that and have
                    a good outcome. Teacher salaries are high, but
                    not on a purchasing parity basis (adjusting
                    for California's high cost of living).
                    \_ The average spending per pupil number is not
                       meaningful. The fact is that CA spends almost 60%
                       of all tax revenues on education. Should it
                       increase to 90%? The fact is that the urban areas
                       of CA are difficult to teach in. Throwing money at
                       the problem won't help. King/Drew in LA has some of
                       the highest paid doctors and a large budget and yet
                       it provides far worse service than other hospitals.
                       The same principles are at work in education.
                       \_ California used to spend 4.5% of state income
                          on education, now we spend 3%. Not surprisingly,
                          the quality of the education has gone down. We
                          need to raise taxes.
                          \_ Uhm... Doesn't the state law say they have to
                             spend 40% of outlay on education, minimum?
                          \_ Where are you getting these crazy numbers?
                             \_ From the Rand report cited above. "In the
                                early to mid-1970s, California spent about
                                the same share of its personal income on
                                public education as the rest of the country
                                did, about 4.5 percent. However, in the late
                                1970s, the share of personal income that
                                Californians devoted to their public schools
                                fell to about 1.2 percent below the national
                                average and remained well below the national
                                average through 2000."
                                \_ Ok that's nice n all but has nothing to do
                                   with total state outlay to education.  The
                                   State is paying 40% of the total budget at
                                   a minimum, by law.  How much more of the
                                   budget would you like to spend on education
                                   in this state?  At what level of budget
                                   spending do you think we'd magically have a
                                   real school system again?  You're just
                                   playing with statistics that favor your
                                   "pay my mom more money!" position.  I've
                                   *never* heard or seen anyone, reputable or
                                   not, use a "percentage of personal income"
                                   measurement to determine anything before.
                                   Ever.  Join the rest of us using a useful
                                   number and we'll talk.  In the meantime,
                                   the evil teacher's unions can take a hike.
                                   \_ Exactly. CA has a higher income. Why
                                      does the % matter? Likewise,
                                      spending per pupil. If I have a
                                      school district of 10 and a school
                                      district of 100 they both need, say,
                                      an administrator. The district of 10
                                      is going to pay more per pupil for
                                      that administrator, but they are not
                                      getting anything more for it. You
                                      can't argue this with teachers,
                                      though. They just like to bitch.
                 \_ Prior to prop 13, California had some of the best public
                    schools in the nation.  Post prop 13, it ranks near the
                    bottom.  It is at least a very strong data point.
                    \_ Once judges ruled that local money couldn't be spent
                       locally, Prop 13 was inevitable.
                    \_ Getting rid of Prop 13 won't help anything. Don't
                       believe the propaganda.
                    \_ Yeah, prop13 was so great.  The schools were just
                       awesome... for anyone not getting taxed out of their
                       home and forced to move out of state.
              \_ Spoken like either a true union cultist or someone who has
                 no idea how the teacher's unions work in this country.
                 \_ spoken like someone who went through public schools and
                    saw almost every helpful and effective program for
                    connecting with students fought and eventually dissolved
                    because of financial reasons.  Spoken like someone who
                    has family working in public education being jerked around
                    by an administration focused on standards based assessment
                    and transfered or laid off at least once a year due to
                    financial reasons.
                    \_ yes, everyone in teaching is just like your anecdotal
                       experiences.  go look at how the unions behave and come
                       back and shed a bitter tear about all those poor
                       teachers who just want to educate the next generation.
                       \_ actually, every teacher I know winds up spending
                          hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on books
                          and office supplies that the school system refuses
                          to pay for.
                          \_ They can deduct this on their taxes. It sounds
                             to me like they need to take this up with their
                             school district. The money is there, but teachers
                             are such pathetic whiners I can't blame most
                             districts for tuning them out at this point.
        \_ The same article says:
           "Two-thirds of Americans say the use of atomic bombs was
           So it was unavoidable BUT it was still a bad idea? Hmm.
           So it was unavoidable BUT it was still a bad idea?
           \_ The same article says a number of other things but taking a
              single line out of context makes some people feel good.
              \_ Okay here is some context. Preceding lines:
                 "President Truman decided to try to end the war by
                  dropping atomic bombs ... Those bombings led to
                  Japan's announcement on Aug. 15 that it would
                 And then the article says 2/3 of Americans felt that
                 the use of the bombs of unavoidable - ie there was
                 no way to end the war OTHER than to use the A-Bomb.
                 The line following says that 20% of Japanese agreed
                 that use of the A-Bomb was the only way to end the
                 war while 75% felt that the war would have ended
                 w/o the A-Bomb. Then comes the sentence so promiently
                 quoted above. I find it inconsistent to not approve
                 of something that you find was the ONLY possible
        \_ A lot of Japanese don't even know about Pearl Harbor.  Japanese
           textbooks only talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
                \_ Do Americans now about the crippling naval blockade that
                   made the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?
                   \_ But Japan attacked without declaring war.
                   \_ yea, America should continue to supply Japan with the
                      resources to undertake more Nanjing Massacres.
                        \_ The point was that it was something foreseeable.
                   \_ If not others, the 1970 Hollywood movie "Tora! Tora!
                      Tora!" by 20th Century Fox talked about all that.
2005/7/24-26 [Uncategorized] UID:38796 Activity:nil 72%like:38555 53%like:38833
7/24    FTP hozers, read the official motd. - jvarga
2005/7/24-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38797 Activity:low
7/25    Pollution fighting concrete, &c.,2782,68282,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6

 34 threads,  780 lines, 157 replies,  22.9 lines/thread,   4.6 replies/thread
                              stddev:  28.0                 5.9
2005/7/24-26 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:38798 Activity:nil
7/24    There was a talk a few months ago that disk quotas would be
        increased.  Does this have any relation to the talk in the
        official motd?
        \_ Relation: yes.  Every server except screwdriver is getting love.
           Scotch was the first step, then comes moving homedirs over to keg,
           then finally the main soda move.  - jvarga
2005/7/24-28 [Recreation/Food/Alcohol, Recreation/Food] UID:38799 Activity:nil
7/24    foodP! 7pm Fondue Freds, Wednesday 7/27
        come one, come all
        \_ use evite.
        \_ how much is it? I'm poor...
           \_ The idea is to take advantage of their 6+ person deal, which
              comes out to basically $20/person.  Definitely more expensive
              than say a TopDog, but it is an all-you-can-eat deal for fondue
              and their house wine.
              The CSUA used to have regular FoodP's, a tradition that has
              (sadly) apparently died.  -ERic
        \_ Who is going? Alumni or students? I'm a poor student, can you
           rich wealthy land-owning alumni buy me food? I promise to
           entertain you guys with new Soda Hell stories. Are there going
           to be hot women? Is karen going?
           \_ Are there going to be stalkers attending?
              \_ Why?  You lose yours?
           \_ CSUA w/ booth babes. Now there's a concept.
        \_ I had fondue once and hated it. Maybe it was the particular
           cheese? Or is it usually the same type? It was also expensive for
           what it is and the skill involved. I think I'd love a chocolate
           fondue though.
           \_ There are many variations, but a typical cheese fondue will
              contain some of swiss, gruyere and ementhaler cheeses, plus dry
              white wine, and often some garlic, or lemon juice, or kirch.
              Personally I love gruyere, but some people hate it.
           \_ A crappy fondue has too much starch, low quality wine, shitty
              cheese, cat intestines, whatever in it.  -John the Fondue Expert
        \_ I like Fondue Fred's.  And their house wine is excellent after the
           third glass or so.  I'd go if I was in the bay area.  -niloc
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:July:24 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>