 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11141949
Summary: At least some places in America, children are utterly unworthy of
living here. Ten US Citizenship questions at the bottom.
I'm honestly curious how many people from Africa, Europe, and whatever else
is represented here could answer the questions at the bottom. Only one did I
even have to hesitate and think about, and that's probably due to the
current level of booze here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Summary: At least some places in America, children are utterly
>> unworthy of living here. Ten US Citizenship questions at the bottom.
>
> I wonder how old the children were that were asked?
High school is grade 10, 11, and 12, so age 15 thru 17.
> Not me. I could only answer four for sure - maybe I would have guessed
> some others correctly but unlikely I would have passed.
Interesting. Of course, from my POV, I couldn't tell you whether King George
the Third came before or after King George the Fifth, so I guess I'd be as
bad in Europe as some folks would be here. I was more curious whether it was
a failing of the US education system, a failure of me to pay attention in
those classes, or just normal for people not to know even the basics of the
history of the other side of the world.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:33:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> High school is grade 10, 11, and 12, so age 15 thru 17.
15 thorough 18. Some of us were not fortunate enough to be born before
the cutoff and started a year later than others our age. But also these
days, "High school" tends to be grades 9-12 rather than 10-12...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:52:25 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>
>I'm honestly curious how many people from Africa, Europe, and whatever else
>is represented here could answer the questions at the bottom.
I had to google to check but I was right.
I got more than 50% right I can't answer 1, 2 and 4.
I actually failed the British citizen check by guessing wrongly the first time
around. It really works :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I got more than 50% right I can't answer 1, 2 and 4.
Where are you from? The UK?
SPOILERS:
Did you slap your forehead when you looked up the answer to #1? As in, was
it so easy you didn't realize what they were asking? Or did you not know?
Hmmm... Do other countries have "bill of rights" as a marketing term? Around
here, we talk about "car buyer's bill of rights" and "airline passenger bill
of rights" and crap like that, but I wonder if such terminology has leaked
into other countries.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/17/09 11:33, Darren New wrote:
> whether it was a failing of the US education system, a failure of me to
> pay attention in those classes, or just normal for people not to know
> even the basics of the history of the other side of the world.
That presupposes that there is another side of the world.
--
ASCII and ye shall receive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/17/09 17:02, Darren New wrote:
> Hmmm... Do other countries have "bill of rights" as a marketing term?
> Around here, we talk about "car buyer's bill of rights" and "airline
> passenger bill of rights" and crap like that, but I wonder if such
> terminology has leaked into other countries.
My guess is that in the UK, it's either the "note of rights" or the
"cheque of rights".
--
ASCII and ye shall receive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:02:01 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> I got more than 50% right I can't answer 1, 2 and 4.
>
>Where are you from? The UK?
>
Aye
>SPOILERS:
>
>
>Did you slap your forehead when you looked up the answer to #1? As in, was
>it so easy you didn't realize what they were asking? Or did you not know?
I did not look it up. I do not understand the question. What does the term "the
supreme law of the land" mean?
>
>Hmmm... Do other countries have "bill of rights"
Yes the English Bill of Rights 1689 (An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties
of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown) and the Scottish Bill
of Rights (Claim of Right Act 1689) existed 100 years before yours :P
>as a marketing term? Around
>here, we talk about "car buyer's bill of rights" and "airline passenger bill
>of rights" and crap like that, but I wonder if such terminology has leaked
>into other countries.
Not here yet ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:22:27 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>On 09/17/09 17:02, Darren New wrote:
>> Hmmm... Do other countries have "bill of rights" as a marketing term?
>> Around here, we talk about "car buyer's bill of rights" and "airline
>> passenger bill of rights" and crap like that, but I wonder if such
>> terminology has leaked into other countries.
>
> My guess is that in the UK, it's either the "note of rights" or the
>"cheque of rights".
Smarty :)
It could be called the "Lack of Rights" :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I did not look it up. I do not understand the question. What does the term "the
> supreme law of the land" mean?
Oh. The Constitution says in the text that it is the supreme law of the
land. If other laws are made that are in conflict with the Constitution, the
Constitution wins. If the Constitution says "You may not keep women from
voting", and some state passes a law that says women may not vote, that
state law is overruled by the supreme law of the land and is unenforcible.
> Yes the English Bill of Rights 1689 (An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties
> of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown) and the Scottish Bill
> of Rights (Claim of Right Act 1689) existed 100 years before yours :P
Cool. See what I meant? ;-)
> Not here yet ;)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Only one did I even have to hesitate and think about, and that's probably due
> to the current level of booze here.
Or the fact that they keep adding Justices? At least, that's the one I
got wrong.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/17/09 11:33, Darren New wrote:
>> whether it was a failing of the US education system, a failure of me to
>> pay attention in those classes, or just normal for people not to know
>> even the basics of the history of the other side of the world.
>
> That presupposes that there is another side of the world.
>
If there's only one side to the world, does that mean that it's a giant
Mobious strip? :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11141949
>
> Summary: At least some places in America, children are utterly unworthy
> of living here. Ten US Citizenship questions at the bottom.
>
> I'm honestly curious how many people from Africa, Europe, and whatever
> else is represented here could answer the questions at the bottom. Only
> one did I even have to hesitate and think about, and that's probably due
> to the current level of booze here.
>
39% don't know what ocean is the US eastern seaboard? ROFL!
I would have passed barely. 6 correct
My wife, an actual American, got 7.
My daughter, a high schooler and fresh from civics class got 9. (Thought
there were 8 justices.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No, I could not. I'm not into politics and those questions are all about
politics. I knew about George Washington, though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:08:43 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> I did not look it up. I do not understand the question. What does the term "the
>> supreme law of the land" mean?
>
>Oh. The Constitution says in the text that it is the supreme law of the
>land. If other laws are made that are in conflict with the Constitution, the
>Constitution wins. If the Constitution says "You may not keep women from
>voting", and some state passes a law that says women may not vote, that
>state law is overruled by the supreme law of the land and is unenforcible.
>
OK, thanks. We're probably not used to that idea as we don't have a written
Constitution. (Yet! :)
>> Yes the English Bill of Rights 1689 (An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties
>> of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown) and the Scottish Bill
>> of Rights (Claim of Right Act 1689) existed 100 years before yours :P
>
>Cool. See what I meant? ;-)
>
Yes but I couldn't resist it :)
We just talk about consumer rights.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I did not look it up. I do not understand the question. What does the
>> term "the
>> supreme law of the land" mean?
>
> Oh. The Constitution says in the text that it is the supreme law of the
> land. If other laws are made that are in conflict with the Constitution,
> the Constitution wins. If the Constitution says "You may not keep women
> from voting", and some state passes a law that says women may not vote,
> that state law is overruled by the supreme law of the land and is
> unenforcible.
>
My first reaction was to just shake my head in wonderment about how only
28% could get that right. Then I checked the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution. It isn't just the Constitution, but also Federal Statutes
and Treaties.
Given recent history, I would not have remembered the last part.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> a écrit dans le message de news:
4ab30128@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
>> http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11141949
>>
>> Summary: At least some places in America, children are utterly unworthy
>> of living here. Ten US Citizenship questions at the bottom.
>>
>> I'm honestly curious how many people from Africa, Europe, and whatever
>> else is represented here could answer the questions at the bottom. Only
>> one did I even have to hesitate and think about, and that's probably due
>> to the current level of booze here.
>>
> 39% don't know what ocean is the US eastern seaboard? ROFL!
>
> I would have passed barely. 6 correct
> My wife, an actual American, got 7.
> My daughter, a high schooler and fresh from civics class got 9. (Thought
> there were 8 justices.)
I got 6 correct but...
was is "US"?
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> If there's only one side to the world, does that mean that it's a giant
> Mobious strip? :)
I would think it would be a klein bottle.
Actually, wouldn't there be something between a mobeus strip and a klein
bottle? It seems like there should be. Or is the surface of a klein bottle
a 3-D surface twisted thru 4D, just like a mobeus is a 2-D surface twisted
in 3D?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> My first reaction was to just shake my head in wonderment about how only
> 28% could get that right. Then I checked the Supremacy Clause of the
> Constitution. It isn't just the Constitution, but also Federal Statutes
> and Treaties.
I don't believe it has been interpreted that way. Certainly federal statues
are secondary to the constitution in practice, and I believe the question of
treaties is still somewhat open to argument. There are regularly federal
statues struck down as unconstitutional, and I think the argument is that
since the president can't make a treaty without the congress approving it
later, it's also subject to constitutional limits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Or the fact that they keep adding Justices? At least, that's the one I
> got wrong.
It's been nine for as long as I can remember. Occasionally you have
situations where one or more have left and new ones haven't taken their
place, but nine is normal?
Thinking on it, I think they added some way back in the first half of the
1900's or so, maybe? FDR stacking the deck or something?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> My first reaction was to just shake my head in wonderment about how only
>> 28% could get that right. Then I checked the Supremacy Clause of the
>> Constitution. It isn't just the Constitution, but also Federal Statutes
>> and Treaties.
>
> I don't believe it has been interpreted that way. Certainly federal
> statues are secondary to the constitution in practice, and I believe the
> question of treaties is still somewhat open to argument. There are
> regularly federal statues struck down as unconstitutional, and I think
> the argument is that since the president can't make a treaty without the
> congress approving it later, it's also subject to constitutional limits.
>
Yes, the Constitution overrides the others. But the clause in the
Constitution (Article 6 paragraph 2) says that the "Supreme Law of the
Land" is made up of those three things.
I was more bashing the test than anything else. The question was vague
enough, and I didn't see the link at the bottom providing the answers
that they wanted. I can still hold some hope for humanity, and just wish
that 30% of the students just told the inquisitive folks to buzz off.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wonder how elementary school, say 5th & 6th grade, children in the
same school system would do. Sometimes it seem that people in high
school forget a lot they learned earlier.
David
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:33:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> High school is grade 10, 11, and 12, so age 15 thru 17.
>
> 15 thorough 18. Some of us were not fortunate enough to be born before
> the cutoff and started a year later than others our age. But also these
> days, "High school" tends to be grades 9-12 rather than 10-12...
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:28:57 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> I wonder how elementary school, say 5th & 6th grade, children in the
> same school system would do. Sometimes it seem that people in high
> school forget a lot they learned earlier.
That would be interesting (though elementary typically is K-5 now, 6-8 is
middle, 9-12 is high, at least here and where I grew up).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Or the fact that they keep adding Justices? At least, that's the one
>> I got wrong.
>
> It's been nine for as long as I can remember. Occasionally you have
> situations where one or more have left and new ones haven't taken their
> place, but nine is normal?
I thought it was 7. Looking it up, though, it's been 9 since 1869.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
