Should the US divorce?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Excel is surprisingly under taught. My understanding of it is that it's the most sought after business skill, but high schools don't really teach it, and most college programs don't teach it either. At least in Nevada, California, and Ohio (the three states I've gone to college in) Excel is not included as part of the general education requirements for the state university programs.

But, that goes back to education. Since you don't have the skills locally, you have an interest in making sure other states are teaching the in demand skills you need. That's why education needs federal standards and needs to be taken out of state hands.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Excel is surprisingly under taught. My understanding of it is that it's the most sought after business skill, but high schools don't really teach it, and most college programs don't teach it either. At least in Nevada, California, and Ohio (the three states I've gone to college in) Excel is not included as part of the general education requirements for the state university programs.

But, that goes back to education. Since you don't have the skills locally, you have an interest in making sure other states are teaching the in demand skills you need. That's why education needs federal standards and needs to be taken out of state hands.

In 2004 I got my company to pay for me to get privately tutored in advanced excel. Best decision ever, an absolutely priceless. I've been hired on the spot for the exact reasons you mentioned above. Add Access skills too.
My husband and brother are Jedi level in excel (and math in general). I almost died laughing during the holidays when they were feverishing working on their computers. I asked them what they were doing and they were doing fantasy football calculations on excel!

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

"These places wouldn't necessary have to be near each other either."
What would you suggest, teleport the states apart? Or dig a giant ditch?

...........

Clusters of like minded places.. it means that Minnesota could be in the same "political/country" cluster as Texas, but does not need to be physically near it. Kinda like how we have Chinatown in both California and Chicago.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
In 2004 I got my company to pay for me to get privately tutored in advanced excel. Best decision ever, an absolutely priceless. I've been hired on the spot for the exact reasons you mentioned above. Add Access skills too.
My husband and brother are Jedi level in excel (and math in general). I almost died laughing during the holidays when they were feverishing working on their computers. I asked them what they were doing and they were doing fantasy football calculations on excel!

Excel demand is so high that all companies care about is that you can type numbers into the boxes, not necessarily how to use it. I remember a story from our company not too long ago. We had a spreadsheet of office purchases being made (we're purchasing a new office, furnishing it, etc for my division). The finance guys need to do something and spend 3 days setting the colors/fonts of our spreadsheet. Then we have to change the spreadsheet around and they lose their # because getting it set up took them days, and they don't have the time to reformat everything.

We reformatted it ourselves in under 5 minutes because unlike them, we apparently know how to use conditional formatting. Of course, that didn't fix the issue that they hardcoded every single cell, they never set up any calculated fields, so we had to redo all of that too.

That was from the so called Excel experts.

As a bonus story, here's one I experienced about 2.5 months ago. In our old office (which was being shared with another division) the other division has a guy whose job it is to look through our many thousands of products and millions of unique parts, and identify part numbers so that the product support team can get replacement parts sent out. Our products don't have any type of ordering system to their names, and the part numbers themselves are even worse, they're almost totally random. This guy was trying to find a part for a product that we stopped selling back in 1986. He was looking through a database of millions upon millions of random parts and trying to identify the exact piece (he was looking through part numbers sequentially). He had spent 2 weeks on this and based on his current progress estimated that it was going to take him another 4 weeks to find this part. All other work he was doing was put on hold to find this one 50 cent piece.

I overheard him talking about it, and went over to his desk. A small SQL command later and I had his part. It took under 5 minutes.

He is that divisions "database guy". Forget forms, reports, macros, and pivot tables. This guy didn't even know how to write a query.

a reply to: Aazadan

and food is not essential.

You say some of the most irrational things here. It makes me wonder about you.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

There are 50 states. And the representation of each state on an equal footing is mostly centralized in the senate. In the house and in the electoral college its more about population.

In the Senate, each state is an equal.

The post I was referring to was presenting a hypothetical of dissolving the US, and having a very loose and weak federal government for certain issues. In that scenario there is no longer a House or a Senate.

Which I'll point out, is part of Russia's and China's long term geopolitical strategy to topple the US, and they direct a lot of such propaganda at us trying to make the idea popular.

Have you read the preamble to the constitution? Let me paste it here for you to digest.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

provide for the common defence, That is one of the few primary responsibilities of the Fed.

a reply to: Aazadan

When I did pivot tables my bosses thought I was performing black magic.
I had a boss that said "math is hard".......

We worked in IT for a major bank.. if that doesn't scare you I don't know what will.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Aazadan

and food is not essential.

You say some of the most irrational things here. It makes me wonder about you.

Let me rephase. Locally/regionally grown food is not essential. If you control the ports, and secure shipping lanes you can purchase food from anywhere on the globe. This will double screw anyone who is trying to live a rural lifestyle, since now not only do they lack needed resources while the conflict is going on, but they've lost their customers when the conflict is over.

a reply to: CharlesT

Does it specify defense as purely military? Ensuring global competitiveness in our products, education, and lifestyle is also a form of defense as well as a form of general welfare.

How would we have those amazing aircraft carriers that give us immense power projection, and make our mainland essentially untouchable if we didn't push education?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: CharlesT

Does it specify defense as purely military? Ensuring global competitiveness in our products, education, and lifestyle is also a form of defense as well as a form of general welfare.

How would we have those amazing aircraft carriers that give us immense power projection, and make our mainland essentially untouchable if we didn't push education?

Providing for the general defense is not necessarily defined as strictly defending out borders. I'm sure our general defense entails a diverse means to accomplish that task in these times.

What I'm trying to get you to see here is that our constitution is specific in describing the limited authority, responsibilities and obligations of the federal government and was never meant to be the soul governing body of a confederation of independent states.

Yes the commerce clause did give the fed control over interstate and international commerce but that clause has been so manipulated and abused only to gain authority over far much more than it was originally intended to have authority over. One problem I have problems with is that states restrict insurance companies from selling across state lines. For me, that does indeed come under the commerce clause but, for financial reasons, the fed has not intervened to allow this kind of interstate commerce. Selective enforcement? Yes! Why? Money!

Regardless, most don't even realize just how important the preamble is to understanding the rest of what our constitution is. Yes it is specific and does describe the limitations placed on the fed because states feared exactly what has happened today. Total control by the federal usurpation of the states and citizens right to freedom and self government.

By the way, the Civil war was not about slavery but was actually an invasion by the northern states to prevent the southern states from a constitutionally legal withdrawal from a confederation they came to the conclusion that was wholly oppressive to their society and states well being...

Edit: You mention international trade as being part of national defense. I don't think so. International trade may present some hardships to our economy but national defense? I don't think so unless it pertains to a commodity that is specifically related to maintaining our defensive capabilities. I'm sure this will be controversial for you but hell, Hillary Clinton and the Obama cabal weakened our national defense by giving Russian companies control over our and Canada's domestic uranium resources. Figure that one...

originally posted by: CharlesT
Yes the commerce clause did give the fed control over interstate and international commerce but that clause has been so manipulated and abused only to gain authority over far much more than it was originally intended to have authority over. One problem I have problems with is that states restrict insurance companies from selling across state lines. For me, that does indeed come under the commerce clause but, for financial reasons, the fed has not intervened to allow this kind of interstate commerce. Selective enforcement? Yes! Why? Money!

In some states they actually do allow for insurance across state lines. No one uses it. Want to know why? It dilutes risk pools and increases paperwork in trying to expand networks. Sure, it would be nice to allow, but not allowing it doesn't actually mean you're missing out on anything. Furthermore, if you want to actually allow it, you should be pushing less to make states their own individual countries, and more one cohesive group, because that makes that outcome more likely.

By the way, the Civil war was not about slavery but was actually an invasion by the northern states to prevent the southern states from a constitutionally legal withdrawal from a confederation they came to the conclusion that was wholly oppressive to their society and states well being...

Every single state succession document lists slavery first and foremost as it's reason. You can say it was about states rights, but what it was really about was their states rights to own slaves.

Edit: You mention international trade as being part of national defense. I don't think so. International trade may present some hardships to our economy but national defense? I don't think so unless it pertains to a commodity that is specifically related to maintaining our defensive capabilities. I'm sure this will be controversial for you but hell, Hillary Clinton and the Obama cabal weakened our national defense by giving Russian companies control over our and Canada's domestic uranium resources. Figure that one...

That's not what happened with Uranium One. You are horribly misinformed. But, international trade increases revenues, that in turn increases taxes which means government programs (including defense) are better funded. It also results in us having a more stable economy, a better educated work force, more variety of products, resulting in more money exchanging hands, and more soft power around the world. All of which are important aspects to defense, because it prevents wars.

a reply to: Aazadan

I'm not like many here that has preformed opinions that are set in stone. I do consider both sides and give equal weight to both before I decide. It's getting late and I'm tired but I won't forget your arguments. I do appreciate your reply and input here. will review these last posts tomorrow and definitely consider your input.
Good night to you:
Charles

I wonder when the last time some of you have been outside??

Take a look at the amount of fat-assed, technology addicted, drug fueled, worthless people slithering around this country. Break up the states? A civil war?? Please.
Nobody is as angry as they pretend to be online. They certainly aren't capable of putting the energy into the historical undertaking it would take to dissolve the US.

originally posted by: Jstantherno1
I wonder when the last time some of you have been outside??

Take a look at the amount of fat-assed, technology addicted, drug fueled, worthless people slithering around this country. Break up the states? A civil war?? Please.
Nobody is as angry as they pretend to be online. They certainly aren't capable of putting the energy into the historical undertaking it would take to dissolve the US.

It wouldn't happen because our differences aren't really based on state lines this time around. It's urban vs rural, even in red states the cities are almost entirely blue. No one would be trying to leave and form their own country, because these divisions exist at every level. Federal vs State, City vs Town, Town vs Rural, Rural vs Hermits. At any subdivision the exact same fundamental issue still exists. As a result, it's not a fight to create a recognized government, it's a fight to change the current government based on a particular ideology, and it's starting to go violent.

Such a civil war would not involve armies roaming the countryside doing battle. It would be fought as a war of terrorism, attacking soft targets and places of commerce/education/worship. Sound familiar?

a reply to: Aazadan

There's more than one problem with that Red Dawn wet dream.

A big one is that it assumes that all citizens will fall in.

And, North Vietnam had Migs.

And, the Mujahadin had US weapons.

a reply to: JAGStorm
Divorce from who? Itself? I think the only way to solve this oh so great dilemma of our era, is to put names of all the states in a hat and then the one that gets pulled gets to be "supreme decider" for?..Oh lets say 3 years or so. And then after there term is up, and people have criticized everything they did for those 3 years.

We can pull names of states out of a hat again...Yup! I mean it would be like the presidency, and that worked so great, why not do it with states, and there particular idioms and idiocies as well. If anything, it would be humorous. Put it on the TV and you have yourself a sitcom, which would give the news a run for its money.

Oh ya! The only thing that can solve this great dilemma that we are facing as a country, is a hat, some pieces of paper, and maybe somebody to shake up the hat a bit just to keep it more random.

a reply to: JAGStorm
If that happened there would be eventual war.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan

There's more than one problem with that Red Dawn wet dream.

A big one is that it assumes that all citizens will fall in.

And, North Vietnam had Migs.

And, the Mujahadin had US weapons.

I don't think it requires that at all. When the next civil war happens (and we're on that path now), it will consist of decentralized terrorist attacks. The government itself won't be the target, people who support or oppose the government will.

originally posted by: prevenge
a reply to: JAGStorm
If that happened there would be eventual war.

That will probably happen regardless.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

That is the worst meme, and I've hated it since I first saw it. The individual who wrote out that number had an intent, and instead of acting like both sides are correct due to subjective interpretation, they should get together, find the person who wrote it, and determine original intent.

If it was "6," then the guy claiming that it's a "9" because of their literal viewpoint is wrong, no matter how they spin it (and vice versa).

Sorry to get all serious, but that particular meme just really irks me, because it's the way that living-document constitutional scholars view historical documents--they twist it and mold it to conform to their own subjective interpretations when they should be concerning themselves with original intent.

Pet peeves are annoying...maybe they are my pet peeves.