is public scool obsolete?

[Revoltingest]

Maybe so, but Google and Youtube are definitely not the friends of plumbers and mechanics (if I'm not putting too much confidence in people to Google how to do at least simple plumbing and auto repairs).

Watching a video & actually doing the job are 2 different things.
I'm just finishing a job (using the labor of others) fixing a backing up drain.
It involved removing a concrete floor, 2 full days work for a pro plumber, new concrete, new tile, etc etc.
It's about $10K worth of work.
Google & Youtube donna do me no good.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

Now there is an argument I'm powerless to refute.

I'm curious whence comes such strong opinions....
What experience do you have in business or with government?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Might be an age or location thing, then. I'd need more information to understand why your science classes in a public school didn't teach evolution.

My teacher said something to the extent of "it's just a theory, it doesn't make any sense, and we know how god created life on Earth anyways, so we'll just skip this part."
This was an AP-Biology course.

 

[Mister Silver]

My teacher said something to the extent of "it's just a theory, it doesn't make any sense, and we know how god created life on Earth anyways, so we'll just skip this part."
This was an AP-Biology course.

Location, was it in the U.S. bible belt area?

 

[Father Heathen]

"Couldn't", and not bothering, are two different responses. I don't bother arguing with, or in many cases even responding to self-proclaimed libertarians. I've found it's a waste of time and energy as they willfully ignore any evidence, information, facts, or reasoning that doesn't perpetuate their bizarre fantasies about anarchy magically ringing in a new egalitarian utopia.

Since you misrepresent it with such a ridiculous straw man, it's the libertarians who would be wasting their time and energy. A libertarian, by the most basic definition, is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's it. Not all or even most libertarians are for zero government and total privitization. You wouldn't consider all conservatives fascists or all liberals communists, would you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Location, was it in the U.S. bible belt area?

Indiana.

 

[Mister Silver]

Indiana.

What years did you attend high school?

 

[Father Heathen]

My teacher said something to the extent of "it's just a theory, it doesn't make any sense, and we know how god created life on Earth anyways, so we'll just skip this part."
This was an AP-Biology course.

I would've flew out of my desk if my teacher said and did that. Not even my tiny rural redneck high school tried to pull **** like that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not all or even most libertarians are for zero government and total privitization. You wouldn't consider all conservatives fascists or all liberals communists, would you?

Most definitely. The only Libertarian I've read that does advocate for an ultra-minimalist state (bordering on Anarchy) with everything, including the military, being privatized in Robert Nozick. And then on the other hand we have Milton's fiscal ideas that revolved around the Constitution and the nation's GDP.

A libertarian, by the most basic definition, is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Even that is starting to change with the emergence of these "Left-winged Libertarians." Though I suspect that is due to the baggage that has been attached to communism and socialism, and because these Left Libertarians seem hardly different from Socialists and Neo-Marxists.

 

[Flame]

I would've flew out of my desk if my teacher said and did that. Not even my tiny rural redneck high school tried to pull **** like that.

Our local high school has. Of course the last teacher who attempted to teach evolution left after that year was through.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What years did you attend high school?

This was around '02/'03.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would've flew out of my desk if my teacher said and did that. Not even my tiny rural redneck high school tried to pull **** like that.

My tiny rural redneck high school did. And even though I had abandoned Christianity at this point, I knew nothing about evolution and wasn't in much of a position to launch an assault.

 

[Mister Silver]

This was around '02/'03.

I did some online research. Indiana public schools have nothing against evolution being taught. Now I'm wondering if it was simply a teacher issue whereby she wanted to insert her religion where it didn't belong.

 

[Father Heathen]

My tiny rural redneck high school did. And even though I had abandoned Christianity at this point, I knew nothing about evolution and wasn't in much of a position to launch an assault.

I don't understand why people who hold no respect for science would choose being a science teacher as a career.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't understand why people who hold no respect for science would choose being a science teacher as a career.

That is a very fine question.

 

[Stevicus]

When anecdotal experience accumulates, it becomes statistics.
So statistically, government isn't very accountable....it just grinds on inexorably as it always has.
You may keep your preference for trusting bigger government.
I'll keep my disdain for it, & my preference for free enterprise.

The main problem with our government today is that it's too heavily corrupted and controlled by business (because that's where all the big money comes from to line the politicians' and bureaucrats' pockets). It's machine politics at work. That's the reason why government isn't very accountable and why it has become what it has become. Our government is exactly the way big business wants it to be.

So, if you want someone to blame for our inefficient, unaccountable government which grinds on inexorably as it always has, then it becomes necessary to look beyond the surface and follow the money.

If the Powers That Be truly wanted a smaller government which is more accountable to the people, then we would have had one by now. Why do you think government is the way it is? Is it because the people want it that way, or is it more to the benefit of big business?

 

[Revoltingest]

The main problem with our government today is that it's too heavily corrupted and controlled by business (because that's where all the big money comes from to line the politicians' and bureaucrats' pockets). It's machine politics at work. That's the reason why government isn't very accountable and why it has become what it has become. Our government is exactly the way big business wants it to be.

So, if you want someone to blame for our inefficient, unaccountable government which grinds on inexorably as it always has, then it becomes necessary to look beyond the surface and follow the money.

If the Powers That Be truly wanted a smaller government which is more accountable to the people, then we would have had one by now. Why do you think government is the way it is? Is it because the people want it that way, or is it more to the benefit of big business?

If corruption by business were the singular problem, then we should see better government
where there is no business, eg, the USSR, PRC. But our socialist friends saw massive
corruption too, particularly in the USSR. So I see the problem as more universal. We need
a comprehensive & systematic approach to avoiding it, detecting it, & punishing the offenders.

One example of a systemic problem is that states can offer special tax deals to particular
industries or companies. This is ripe for corruption, & should be made illegal at the federal
level. Thus, states would have to compete for business without special favors.

Another example is police corruption....cops can commit crimes, & they're often allowed
to resign, & their record is hidden from future employers. This enables criminals to remain
in law enforcement. Michigan is working to end this crime enabling practice by police depts.
Michigan aims to stop job-hopping after police misconduct

 

[PureX]

Since you misrepresent it with such a ridiculous straw man, it's the libertarians who would be wasting their time and energy. A libertarian, by the most basic definition, is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's it. Not all or even most libertarians are for zero government and total privitization. You wouldn't consider all conservatives fascists or all liberals communists, would you?

There's nothing "fiscally conservative" about libertarian economic ideology. And anarchy isn't liberalism.

 

[PureX]

I did some online research. Indiana public schools have nothing against evolution being taught. Now I'm wondering if it was simply a teacher issue whereby she wanted to insert her religion where it didn't belong.

It's not just one teacher, it's the cultural norm in a very backward state. Allowing the teaching of evolution in their public schools doesn't mean evolution gets taught in their public schools any more than disallowing the teaching of creationism in their public schools stops it from being promoted at every opportunity by incompetent teachers that believe it's historical reality.

 

[Stevicus]

If corruption by business were the singular problem, then we should see better government
where there is no business, eg, the USSR, PRC. But our socialist friends saw massive
corruption too, particularly in the USSR. So I see the problem as more universal. We need
a comprehensive & systematic approach to avoiding it, detecting it, & punishing the offenders.

One example of a systemic problem is that states can offer special tax deals to particular
industries or companies. This is ripe for corruption, & should be made illegal at the federal
level. Thus, states would have to compete for business without special favors.

Another example is police corruption....cops can commit crimes, & they're often allowed
to resign, & their record is hidden from future employers. This enables criminals to remain
in law enforcement. Michigan is working to end this crime enabling practice by police depts.
Michigan aims to stop job-hopping after police misconduct

Well, they had businesses in the USSR and PRC. They may not have been the same as ours, but they still had resources, assets, money, gold, business enterprises, etc. Plus, they also had dealings with other countries which did have businesses more like ours, so the potential for corruption was always there. One could suggest that the fall of the USSR itself (and China's concurrent shift towards capitalism) were acts of corruption, in and of themselves. Their leaders wanted a life of wealth and luxury, and that's what they got. (I'm not sure that Stalin or Mao would have approved, though.)

I think that our own Founders implemented the system of checks and balances as a way of keeping tyranny and corruption at bay. We may not be able to change human nature or the propensity towards corruption - but we can keep a better eye on it and rein it in when necessary.

I agree that there are some systemic changes that can be made to alleviate and minimize the damage caused by corruption. The proposal to prevent job-hopping after police misconduct sounds promising and something I would support.

But using that example, I would point up that one problem with corruption at that level is that in our culture, there is too much "faith" in the system that blinds people to the lower side of human nature. I see it all the time whenever there's some public discussion after some newsworthy example of police misconduct. There are far too many people willing to rush forward and run interference to protect rotten cops because they've been raised to have too much respect for "authority" and too much blind faith in the "system." That, I believe, goes to the very root of the "big lie" and why corruption is able to persist.

For similar reasons, it's why the priest abuse scandals were allowed to fester for as long as they did before anything was done about it. A common view is that priests are "men of God" and would never do anything wrong. To accuse a priest was considered tantamount to blaspheming against God - unless one had incontrovertible evidence and solid proof of an extraordinary degree (which is extremely difficult, if not impossible).

It hasn't escaped notice that when a high-level official is accused, they get far greater consideration than those at the lower levels of society. I've heard it suggested that if O.J. Simpson was just another poor black man from the ghetto, he would have been found guilty in less than day. But because he was a rich and famous celebrity, he was treated differently. He could afford high-priced lawyers and drag the trial on for months - and the system allows this.

This phenomenon, just by itself, is an example of corruption at the highest levels. Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book about the O.J. trial and also mentioned that there is a phenomenon in the legal system and in our culture where judges are elevated to some "sacrosanct" level where people are blinded by faith and think of them as infallible and incorruptible.

It may have something to do with the black robes they wear, making them look more like priests in the eyes of the public. Judges even have the power to summarily lock someone up for blasphemy, although they call it "contempt of court." We wouldn't like it if the President had the power to lock up anyone who mouths off to him, yet society seems to be okay with the idea of giving judges that kind of power. Doesn't seem right to me, and it's yet another avenue towards corruption and abuse of power.

My view is that the best way to eliminate abuses of power is to take away that power and put it back in the hands of the people (but not business). The business community and capitalism has its own "faithful adherents" who are willing to turn the blind eye to their misdeeds as well.