Slashdot Mirror


Texas GOP Educational Platform Opposes Teaching Critical Thinking Skills

An anonymous reader writes "Texas Republican delegates met earlier this month to put together their 2012 platform. Much of this focused on the educational system. Alarmingly, they openly state that they oppose schools teaching critical thinking, on the grounds that it may challenge 'student's fixed beliefs' and undermine 'parental authority.' Page 12 of their official platform (PDF) discusses their thinking on teaching thinking."

734 comments

  1. Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is a very old argument. The /. summary links to but doesn't actually quote the platform. Allow me:

    "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

    Now go hit the 'ol Wikipedia on "Outcome Based Education".... I'll wait. For the impatient I'll summarize: This is just a re-run of the long running battles in the late '80s and early '90s over new age teaching methods/using our teachers and kids as lab animals to try radical 'progressive' new ideas in teaching how to be a good progressive doubleplus good thinker that knows everything about stopping mom from putting the trash in the wrong recycling bin but can't locate the US on a map or tell you who George Washington was.

    Having read all that, if you still can't figure out why Republicans would be against it you are simply too closed minded since you shouldn't be ignorant anymore. You don't have to agree with their opposition but you should be able to understand they aren't totally off the rails either.

    We have a crisis in K-12 education where most kids are graduating barely able to send a mangled SMS; 'progressive' experiments that require huge infusions of new money in a recession should be at the bottom of anyone's list in the current environment. We know how to teach Reading, Writing and Math. We have successfully done that in classroom environments most readers here would consider primitive. Get the basics right, then come talk to me about experimenting.

    We KNOW what is going to happen if you let a bunch of lefty trolls loose indoctrinating K-12 kids on 'critical thinking' because we have seen it already in the colleges. Nowhere else do you find such an intolerant monoculture as the tenured elite in their ivory towers.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As usual Slashdot puts up any and all propaganda that makes anyone but radical leftists look like lunatics.

      The liberals did take a good page out of 1984 by learning how to warp and manipulate language to fit their own agenda. For example, relabel the same old provably ineffective (or intentionally worse than ineffective) teaching techniques as "logic" or "critical thinking". Now all of the sudden anyone who opposes the twisted and mangled brainwashing that is labeled "logic" or "critical thinking" is instantly a right-wing extremist Nazi who needs to be "volunteered" for a good liberal "reeducation sensitivity training course".

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    2. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jhoegl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interesting rant.
      So, one would rather have a mindless zombie with the old style "dont question authority and stay on that production line" from the 50s.
      Pray tell.. where did all the thinkers come from then?
      You know why China's kids want to be more innovative and inventive like American kids? It is because they teach like you are preaching.
      You want innovation, critical thinking, you want drones to put tube in hole, you teach as proposed by Texas.

    3. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Galaga88 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Propaganda? The summary comes straight from the policy guideline document.

      Knowledge-Based Education - We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

    4. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare you challenge the groupthink with your defining of terms! Your disregard of OBE shall be subsequently modded troll to make sure others can't see it.

    5. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Funny

      an intolerant monoculture as the tenured elite in their ivory towers

      Achievement unlocked: buzzword combo!

      Has anyone ever actually seen a tower made of ivory? Where did that come from? The "tenured elite" at my small school with only 50,000 students worked in some pretty shitty offices. It would have been pretty sweet to go to class inside an ivory tower instead of the crappy linoleum-tiled brick cages we had the privilege of occupying. As long as they also had ivory elevators.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      LIBERALS! History's greatest monsters. Hitler was a liberal. Satan, too, is a liberal. As we all know since Hussein Obama was elected, Liberals (or "progressives" as they like to be called) sacrifice babies and drink their blood during the weekly satanic rituals they hold in the new, official, Sovereign Kenyan room of the white house. And that, folks, is why critical thinking skills need to be eliminated. Anything less, and you will let the Kenyan baby eating liberal progressives rule over you forever more. LIBERALS!

    7. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a leftie, I still see some logic behind what the OP mentioned. Even though I do not agree with it (in fact, I find the last two paragraphs of attacks a bit offensive), I still find it odd that it was modded down as a troll.

      Without context, it will sound like a red-team vs blue-team fight. I may need to read more to see where the specific contentious issues would be.

      A bit OT, but some radical experiments in education are happening on the tech side -- udacity, coursera, etc. Not sure if they fall under 'progressive' (more like cool-techie-engineering solutions), and would be extremely disruptive to established interests both on the red and blue teams :)

    8. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      You just can't make up this stuff, every paragraph in this PDF is Genius!!! Hilarious stuff in there...

      "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

    9. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      '...running battles in the late '80s and early '90s over new age teaching methods/using our teachers and kids as lab animals to try radical 'progressive' new ideas in teaching...

      Radical new methods like teaching kids to read and be numerate, or did you mean the 1980s and 90s rather than the 1880s and 90s?

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    10. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1
      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The only thing that should be labelled troll is the summary. The "troll" poster is spot on.

    12. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only to a neanderthal are "higher order thinking skills" considered "bullshit"

    13. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you meant this as a jest. Quite funny.

    14. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good question.
      "In Judeo/Christian tradition, the term Ivory Tower is a symbol for noble purity. It originates with the Song of Solomon (7,4) ("Your neck is like an ivory tower") ....... From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a wilful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research" - wikipedia

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    15. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, it's not what you said, but how you said it. Most will not mod someone down for civil discourse, but many (myself included) will mod down posts riddled with inflammatory statements, regardless of the content.

    16. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If by "neanderthal" you mean "genius on the level of Albert Einstein", then perhaps you'll begin to understand what he's saying.

      What he's saying is that "Higher Order Thinking Skills" (note the capital letters and cute initialism) are not actually higher order thinking skills, much like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is neither democratic nor a republic.

    17. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      You get it all the time because your lack of actual logic and rational thinking makes it look like a troll.

      I mean, you're argument almost always have come down to ad hom attacks.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, I used to believe like you still do, that they are just ignorant. I no longer do. I now believe many of them are truly evil. They read 1984 and saw an instruction manual for how to reorder a society instead of a warning.

      Remember, Dr. Evil is funny because he admits being a villian, that almost never actually happens. No, people with totally fudged up inverted moral compasses convince themselves that the wicked things they desire are not wicked, nay they are good and desirable things. Do you wonder why they keep calling us evil for believing in the traditional values of Western Civ? Usually we shrug it off as hyperbole. I submit that it isn't. That their moral compasses are so twisted that when viewed from their p.o.v. we truly ARE evil. The converse of course is also true, as it by definition must be. Not pleasant thoughts, but there they are on an otherwise terrible day for liberty.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    19. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      I read the Wikipedia article you linked to and your depiction of it seems awfully far from what the article actually says. The tldr version of it is OBE=standardized testing. Where do you get the idea it is in any way related to kids not knowing where the US is on a map? Teachers could neglect to teach basic geography using traditional education systems just as easily.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    20. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it's the inflammatory language in your post that makes you a troll. It's obviously going to invoke hostile responses, which was possibly your intention.

      If you have a valid point learn to make it like a reasonable grown-up. Otherwise your point will be discarded. Ever wonder why nobody listens to you IRL except those in your echo chamber? Well now you know.

    21. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anaerin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's easy. jmorris42 is using the false correlation that students being taught to question everything is leading to students not learning to an adequate skill level, ignoring the huge lack of education spending and censored, jingoistic misinformation being taught. Thus he is proposing instead that students are taught to never question anything told to them, no matter what that might be, or how correct or not it may be, to accept at face value everything they see, and to never make up their own mind on anything.

    22. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      Now go hit the 'ol Wikipedia on "Outcome Based Education".... I'll wait. For the impatient I'll summarize: This is just a re-run of the long running battles in the late '80s and early '90s over new age teaching methods/using our teachers and kids as lab animals to try radical 'progressive' new ideas in teaching how to be a good progressive doubleplus good thinker that knows everything about stopping mom from putting the trash in the wrong recycling bin but can't locate the US on a map or tell you who George Washington was.

      Interesting summary. Funny, though, when I read the article it was mostly about people complaining about testing, testing, demanding students to "enjoy physical education", testing, teaching fuzzy untestable things, testing, testing. For instance, in the United States section:

      The best-known and most far-reaching standards-based education law in the U.S. is the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated certain measurements as a condition of receiving federal education funds. States are free to set their own standards, but the federal law mandates public reporting of math and reading test scores for disadvantaged demographic subgroups, including racial minorities, low-income students, and special education students. Various consequences for schools that do not make "adequate yearly progress" are included in the law.

      I guess it must have been vandalized sometime after you posted.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    23. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I get this all the time. The definition of 'troll' seems to be 'anyone disagreeing with progressives' except it is also used on occasion to mod down the GNAA and other crap.

      Except that you seem to seem to think that just because one stupid wave of "progressives" was wrong, no progressive approach is possible and teaching has to revert to the 19th century model of cramming bookfuls of facts mindlessly for the greater good of all. (If that's not what you have in mind, you failed to make it obvious, what with all those trolly references to "lefties" and "indoctrinating" etc.) You still haven't pointed out how having critical thinking skills is wrong for a student. Knowledge of informal logic, e.g, and proper reasoning skills to spot logical fallacies are immensely useful. The same goes for having an idea as to *how* science works, as opposed to just cramming the high-school digest of the results of past scientific works.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    24. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My problem is not liberal ideals (which are mostly good). It's the fact they don't live up to them. They claim "We are a pro-choice party," and then turn around and take away freedom of choice by banning sodas (New York), movie theater popcorn (effective 2013), and catastrophic insurance plans (under obamacare).

      Hmmm. Or they say, "We oppose the killing of our fellow human beings in foreign wars," and then turn round and start new wars in Yemen, Libya, Syria. (I'm confused.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    25. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 0, Troll

      > I mean, you're argument almost always have come down to ad hom attacks.

      I think you meant ad hominem but since it does not apply I'm not sure.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    26. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sco08y · · Score: 1

      LIBERALS! History's greatest monsters. Hitler was a liberal. Satan, too, is a liberal.

      Nah, the greatest monsters are daycare workers. While she was a Florida prosecutor, Janet Reno was quite famous for running an inquisition looking for ritual satanic sex abuse. She actually locked people in cells, kept the cold, wet and shivering to coerce testimony from them... and those were *her* witnesses.

      And Clinton made her AG, partly on the strength of that record. Yes, that same Clinton who was terribly offended at Starr's investigation of him had been perfectly happy to appoint an AG who ran an inquisition looking for Satanic sex cults against some day care workers.

    27. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by retchdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i'm a liberal and i agree with your point. it's just impossible to codify "critical thinking," even before you add the realities of education: overworked, underpaid and sub-meritorious teachers (btw, i think these problems are endemic to our society; privatization/voucherification will mostly just let parents choose among desired flavors of substandard nutjobbery) who will inevitably use a mix of personal biases and bureaucratic checklists to evaluate "criticalness."

      unfortunately, the gop rejects science pretty much as an axiom (science != engineering, though they're both great), and this isn't new, see e.g. hayek's why i am not a conservative. i think that doing a good job of teaching science is the almost the only way to get to real critical thinking. it's not easy, and i don't think the Ds could manage it either, but from what i can see the gop just throws it out immediately.

      i can't help thinking that we're just fucked.

      and i recommend that everyone read the linked gop pamphlet. it's hilarious in its populist pandering; lines like ``We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species." are almost onion-like. yes, i'm sure that the dems' pamphlets are also full of silliness, but this is the exhibit of the day.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    28. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is trolling:

      We KNOW what is going to happen if you let a bunch of lefty trolls loose indoctrinating K-12 kids on 'critical thinking' because we have seen it already in the colleges. Nowhere else do you find such an intolerant monoculture as the tenured elite in their ivory towers.

    29. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent post made reference to intolerant monoculture in academia. That reference is right on, but since you are obviously invested into it, you probably cannot see this with a clear perspective. Academia pays little in money, but a lot in ego/prestige, even if your office happens to be shitty and windowless. Do not fool yourself: through the tenuring process your values will change and you will feel you are special (and by special I mean 'better' than the rest of 'normal' people). That is the ivory tower. It is a figure of speech, not a tower made of real ivory, you fool. Now, go back to your cube.

    30. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "We KNOW what is going to happen if you let a bunch of lefty trolls loose indoctrinating K-12 kids on 'critical thinking' because we have seen it already in the colleges. Nowhere else do you find such an intolerant monoculture as the tenured elite in their ivory towers."

      I work in those supposed "ivory towers". There's ample diversity of thought and activity. "Left" and "right" is way too simple to represent what actually exists there. It is anything *but* a monoculture when it comes to opinions about all matter of issues, political and not. Now, maybe I'm hopelessly biased myself, but I think the perception of some people that college/university is some kind of "intolerant monoculture" has more to do with their own political views being far out in one direction or another than any lack of diversity of thinking in colleges. The range in a typical college or university seems much wider than the norm to me. I also think it's funny that you include "tenured" in that "ivory tower" phrase, given that tenure is supposed to offer university professors the opportunity to freely state substantially different opinions from the norm without worrying about being fired because they don't happen to align with whatever the "norm" happens to be at that institution. Tenure protects diversity of opinion. It does not suppress it.

      In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with challenging "student's fixed beliefs", because it's something they will inevitably experience their entire lives with their friends and coworkers. If your beliefs aren't challenged, then you need to get out of your own little niche a bit more. They should get used to the possibility their expectations and assumptions about the world will be challenged all the time, because that's normal unless you live as a hermit. Well, unless you want to train them to be mindless, conformant drones that uncritically believe everything anybody in authority tells them (be they parents, bosses, politicians, or whoever). You'd think that people who think colleges are an "intolerant monoculture" would want to send students off to college better prepared to challenge that very "monoculture" by sending students well-trained in critical thinking. To not want this seems rather contradictory.

      I don't care what they apply critical thinking to. But isn't it important to a democratic society for citizens to be critical of what they are being told or how they are being governed? How else can they wade through the rhetorical fluff that politicians of any stripe and other people try to use to control them?

      Also, if students never challenge parental authority, they might never move out of the metaphorical "parents' basement". At some point they have to become an adult on their own. Again, unless you want them to be mindless, conforming drones, they need to realize that they are free to challenge authority within certain reasonable limits (i.e. ideally non-violently) *if* they choose to do so. Eventually children have to be empowered to be adults, unless you want them to rely on everybody else to do all the "responsible adult" stuff (this would be convenient for people in power, I suppose).

      Look, leaving aside the political slant, can we at least agree that an education based solely on repetition of endless facts and an education based purely on development of critical thinking skills, each while neglecting the other aspect of learning, isn't a good idea? You need some kind of balance between the two to help children mature into adults that can fulfill their potential.

    31. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Considering your complete troll actually did receive an upmod, I'd say that not only are you trolling, but you are also factually wrong in your accusation. Good work.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    32. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      How is this in any way trolling ?

      This is just a guess, but it might have something to do with the last paragraph sort of tainting the rest of it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    33. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if your analysis of his thinking is right, that makes him someone with whom you disagree, not a troll.

      But I don't think you have that analysis right to begin with, since the quote "Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education" seems to indicate that they aren't dismissing all "progressive" approaches, merely this specific one, no matter how it gets renamed, which they have found not to work.

    34. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by gishzida · · Score: 0

      Nowhere else do you find such an intolerant monoculture as the tenured elite in their ivory towers.

      Wait... what about Libertarians on \ ???

    35. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do not fool yourself: through the tenuring process your values will change and you will feel you are special (and by special I mean 'better' than the rest of 'normal' people).

      Frankly, that sounds a lot like Wall Street, and the "financial elite". I'm trying to figure out how being valued for your knowledge and wisdom became a bad thing in this country.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    36. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      and then turn round and start new wars in Yemen, Libya, Syria. (I'm confused.)

      Damn, the liberals did that? I thought that was the Arabs. Wait.. unless the Arabs.. are liberals! We're all doomed!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    37. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sadly, what you just said has nothing to do with the actual platform document. They say quite explicitly that they oppose the teaching of "critical thinking skills". That's not the name of some taxpayer funded propaganda campaign, nor is it some modern "left-wing pseudo-intellectual" idea. That's a standard, widely used term that has been around for many many decades, and simply refers to the idea that you shouldn't accept whatever someone tells you without considering it carefully. The fact that they consider it "a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education" shows just how wacky they are. There is nothing novel or experimental about it. Teaching children to think critically and question beliefs is exactly what good teachers have been doing for centuries, and has long been considered to be one of the essential goals of education.

      And that is exactly what they don't want people doing, as they state very clearly. They say these curricula "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs", and they consider that a very bad thing. They want students to believe whatever they're told to believe, and never question it. In short, they support "a policy of teaching children to have a pavlovian "yessum massa!" response" to whatever the authority figures in their lives tell them, and how you can possibly twist that around in your mind and claim the complete opposite is a mystery to me.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    38. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And this is why the left in the US is completely being clobbered by the right. Too often insults, redefinitions and logical fallacies by the conservatives are met by "well, if I can figure out what they're really saying, we can maybe come to an agreement" by what amounts to the left. In other words, they're being nice in response to what is basically bullying.

      Here's the problem: anyone who argues like the initial poster is not looking for a rational discourse, for an enlightening discussion, or even for a solution to a problem. They are merely looking to get enough people onto their side.

      Definitely read up on the issue. But don't mistake the original post for an opening in a an honest discussion. It isn't.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    39. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by OneAhead · · Score: 2

      (in fact, I find the last two paragraphs of attacks a bit offensive)

      To a hard-working academic, the last paragraph is deeply offensive, and serves no purpose in this debate other than provoking angry reactions. Which is the definition of a flamebait. While troll may not have been the most appropriate moderation (a true troll is supposed to be humorous on some level and not meant seriously), "flamebait" would have been pretty much dead-on. Troll comes pretty close (like "interesting" "informative" and "insightful" can sometimes also be used interchangeably).

    40. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by pelirojatica · · Score: 1

      It's unfortunate that jargon is mixed with / confused with plain language.

      Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) is a technical term in this context, and not to be confused with plain old higher order thinking skills (like symbolic logic, algorithmic processes, the scientific method). Maybe the first one has a lot of baggage, but it's too bad that everyone can't get behind the teaching of how to think clearly about complex topics, which is how I would use the term higher order thinking skills. The ability to reason through an argument is far more useful in life than memorizing which authority to follow in all circumstances. Memorizing facts without context, or failing to teach how to figure things out or recognize false logic, are as poor teaching methods as giving everyone a good grade because everyone "tried hard".

      Critical thinking (not their jargon, just plain old brain-engaged thinking) is important, more important than memorizing lists. Both sides may try to indoctrinate children to unthinking drones of their respective ideologies, but I don't have to think it's great for the future of our society.

    41. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except that you seem to seem to think that just because one stupid wave of "progressives" was wrong, no progressive approach is possible and teaching has to revert to the 19th century model of cramming bookfuls of facts mindlessly for the greater good of all.

      He didn't say that.

      You still haven't pointed out how having critical thinking skills is wrong for a student.

      He didn't say it was, and neither does the Republican platform. You left out part of the plank, but that's probably because it was a complicated sentence and not because you have a confirmation bias against all things Republicans say. There were lots of commas and parenthetical inclusions that make it hard to realize the last part of the sentence connects to the front.

      The rest of that plank says "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." The focus on behaviour modification and not education is part of the problem, and the part about having the explicit purpose of undermining parental authority is the second part.

      The problem is the goal of the methods used, and the plank opposes the purpose and focus of the methods, not critical thinking in and of itself.

      Parental authority isn't parental infallability or parental intelligence, it's the authority of the parents in raising and making decisions for their children. Schools should not be trying to undermine that, they should be promoting it. A large part of the education problem in this country is that parents do not exercise enough authority, or even interest in what their children do.

      I suspect that if this opposition was to home schooling by religious parents, it would be put in terms of "child abuse" to mould their minds into the correct way of thinking. When schools use modern methods to do the same kind of thing it's ok. How about the schools teach the students and let the students use that information and critical thinking skills to challenge themselves? If we don't trust them to do that, how will we ever trust them to become the next generation of leaders?

    42. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a very old argument. The /. summary links to but doesn't actually quote the platform. Allow me:

      "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      Now go hit the 'ol Wikipedia on "Outcome Based Education".... I'll wait. For the impatient I'll summarize: This is just a re-run of the long running battles in the late '80s and early '90s over new age teaching methods/using our teachers and kids as lab animals to try radical 'progressive' new ideas in teaching how to be a good progressive doubleplus good thinker that knows everything about stopping mom from putting the trash in the wrong recycling bin but can't locate the US on a map or tell you who George Washington was.

      Having read all that, if you still can't figure out why Republicans would be against it you are simply too closed minded since you shouldn't be ignorant anymore. ...

      Now go hit the 'ol Wikipedia on "Critical Thinking".... I'll wait. For the impatient, I'll quote: "Critical thinking is thinking that questions assumptions.[citation needed] It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false."

      Having read that, if you still can't figure out why liberals, socialists, Democrats, Scientists, the educated, or even Republicans with appropriate critical thinking skills would be aghast and dismayed at a policy statement that insists critical thinking skills shouldn't be taught to children in school, than *you* are simply too closed minded or perhaps ignorant of the meanings of words and phrases like "critical thinking".

    43. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ToadProphet · · Score: 1

      Here's where I think you need a little help: the political spectrum isn't a single axis. It's multi-axis, and the thing you're actually railing on about is authoritarianism which can be of both the left and right variety.

      Unfortunately, both sides* seemed to be rather authoritarian in the US. That may be because of the contentious, war-like approach to politics in the country. Which you seem to embrace rather vigorously, btw.

      *It's debatable whether or not there is actually a party on the left in the US. I tend to agree with Political Compass' take.

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    44. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Funny

      Down with the dune sage brush lizard!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    45. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

      Oh, please. If we're going to judge political parties based on their extremist fringes they both look equally absurd.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    46. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The irony here is that your post displays a dismal lack of critical thinking skills, and the +5 it has illustrates that the same largely applies to a majority of people at Slashdot.

      Specifically, opposing a "program" called "Higher Order Thinking Skills" abbreviated as "HOTS" is not the same as "opposing higher order thinking skills".

      In your mind, because the program Higher Order Thinking Skills has this name, you basically immediately leap: oh, it must be about teaching higher order thinking skills!

      This is on the same level of critical thinking as saying that an organisation called "Americans Working for the Betterment of America" obviously consist of americans working for the betterment of America, and that "The Friendly Company Inc." is a friendly company.

      One of the biggest problems the world will face, and has faced in the past, is a left-wing that is totally clueless yet eminently and aggressively imperialistic in its dysfunctional half-wittedness.

    47. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note how they say "and similar programs". Theyre referring to pre-packaged educational programs which are conveniently shipped around to roll out indoctrination scientifically and accessible to any teacher. Who knows why "critical thinking skills" sneaked in here; its been a PR disaster. It must have been part of the name of some program someone objected to. But to think this is actually assailing critical thinking is absurd and anyone who thinks so, so readily, is just tipping their hand. The real news is that this underscores everyone's preconceptions so elegantly; that its bogus in this one instance is beside the point. Couldnt they find some other dreck in this document to jump on?

    48. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      To a hard-working academic, the last paragraph is deeply offensive, and serves no purpose in this debate other than provoking angry reactions.

      As a hard-working academic, I recognize the people to whom he refers, and know that it is an accurate statement for a large and growing segment of academia. That they might be offended is fine, and I'm not because I know he's not talking about me. There is no constitutional right against being offended.

      I've seen too many people get fired for not having the politically correct attitude of the day to not realize that if I don't agree with the majority I just keep my mouth shut, or speak anonymously.

      I mean, when a campus newspaper columnist gets fired for daring to write about a campus issue and isn't solidly in the culturally sensitive and correct language, there's something wrong. Campuses, the bastion of free expression and discussion, and a newspaper columnist whose job is to talk about things the administration doesn't want to.

    49. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The very person who posted this initially has already declared that war is their intent and chopped the limbs of any discussion with a machete by pretending and construing that opposing a program called "Higher Order Thinking Skills" (HOTS) is the same as opposing the teaching of higher order thinking skills.

      OPs post was a warlike response to a warlike attack on decency and honesty.

    50. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Radical new methods like teaching kids to read and be numerate, or did you mean the 1980s and 90s rather than the 1880s and 90s?

      It is generally accepted practice to assume the pivot date on a two digit year to be closest to the time of the writing.

      But actually.... if you want to go there... if you were to go to a museum or read a book or something you might learn something shocking. Something that would probably rock the foundations of your belief system. A great percentage of Americans in the 1800's were literate, especially if they weren't simple laborers, slaves (actual or recently freed) etc. The safe money would be on you having a greater chance of finding someone in a middle class pub in 1800 Boston who could write a literate paragraph then than you would in a high school class of today.

      They didn't have any of the things we believe are 'essential' to education today but they had better results. Exclude those who never attended school and there wouldn't be much debate as to which group of randomly selected twenty year old citizens were better educated in a comparison between any decade of the 19th Century and 2012. We have vast advantages in wealth and knowledge and are getting an inferior result. Does that make sense? The schools are either epic incompetent or operating as designed by the progressives who instituted mandatory government education. Pick one or provide an alternate explanation for the observed phenomena.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    51. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Show me on the doll where the progressive touched you.

    52. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You still haven't explained why GOP does not want "challenging the student’s fixed beliefs".

    53. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by dark12222000 · · Score: 1

      Fascism is a conservative strategy. It's actually part of your tree, right next to the Nazis. Just wanted to put that out there.


      Nazis.

    54. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes. You see there are parts of Texas where wind farming might actually be profitable someday. So of course the greens went right to work finding a mascot to rally around to stop any such notion. Cue the Dune Sagebrush Lizard.

      With progressives it is never what they say in public that should be considered, but what they say when they don't think anyone else is listening to some boring CSPAN crap. It isn't about alternative energy, it is about forcing people to use LESS energy, period. So a successful 'alternative' source is just as bad a coal from their perspective.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    55. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by NiceGeek · · Score: 2

      Explain away this one:

      "Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

      There is no scientific controversy regarding evolution. This is merely a way to get Creationism taught in public schools.

    56. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Obama and Bloomberg aren't that liberal.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    57. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      If you disagree please tell me what body count YOU define as 'the line',

      I would go farther back and see whether you blame the "progressive" north U.S.A. that wanted to control the south and happened to abolish slavery as an afterthought, or perhaps the "progressive" American Colonies that rebelled against the British empire. Probably it would have been better if everyone had sat around in the trees instead of coming down to farm. After all, ghengis khan wouldn't have gotten very far without horses, would he? The first single-celled organism's genotype was good enough for me. All this progressive multicellularism and biodiversity has just resulted in death and heartache.

    58. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Wait... what about Libertarians on \ ???

      Shows how little you know about Libertarians or Libertarianism. Gather a dozen Libertarians and try to get them to agree on anything of substance. Oh, they will mostly agree that the FED is bad, drugs are good and unimportant things like that but they disagree on almost everthing else. Which points up their problem, it is an incomplete philosophy. It hasn't developed all the details of how you actually could organize a society without a recognizable government. Pin one down and make them explain how you deal with corner cases and you get insanity, the smarter ones will admit the problem but the diehards are hilarious as they twist reality into knots.

      Personally I believe (and admit it is just an irrational emotional belief) that the future does lie in that direction, we just need another couple of great thinkers to solve some of the gaps in the theory. That more liberty is better than less. Kinda like the current state of physics, we all know in our gut there is a theory of everything out there and we are probably on the right basic track... but until we get another Newton or Einstein we can't know for sure and the current state of things is a disaster.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    59. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone ever actually seen a tower made of ivory?

      No, can't say that I have. I do, however, live in an ivory bungalow and I had to kill every elephant in Tanzania to make it. Ivory towers are a myth.

    60. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My problem is not liberal ideals (which are mostly good). It's the fact they don't live up to them. They claim "We are a pro-choice party," and then turn around and take away freedom of choice by banning sodas (New York), movie theater popcorn (effective 2013), and catastrophic insurance plans (under obamacare).

      I think you attach too much meaning to ideology. It doesn't work that way. You can be a dweeb and nail everybody to the wall for being "hypocritical" but it's completely unproductive and ignores the fact that laws are passed by people who are elected by people, and are meant to address political demands. They know they're not being consistent and they don't care. Consistency is for restaurants and Nazis.

      I'm sorry if you've misappropriated one slogan on one issue ("pro-choice") and decided to use it as some sort of predicate to judge every policy objective leftists have. There are any number or rightist slogans ("limited government", "fiscal responsibility", "sacredness of life") that are similarly fraught. That's just how it works -- healthy people don't join political movements for ideology, they join them to accomplish common goals through collective action.

      And since when was Michael Bloomberg a liberal?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    61. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why go the hard way? If that is the outcome you want, the doctor can help you. Two small taps each on either side of the nose close to tear ducts (make sure you miss the eye ball). Each patient ^M^M^M^M^M^M^M student gets a small procedure of a um.. medical.. nature, and then they are compliant, having had their cerebral frontal cortex (where a lot of that critical thinking stuff goes on) altered/modified so that they are compliant, calm and no longer prone to sudden outbursts. Mobile trucks "Lobotomobiles' can visit each school and perform the needed procedures on 300 students per week. You can get the idea here.

    62. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Informative

      The liberals did take a good page out of 1984 by learning how to warp and manipulate language to fit their own agenda. For example, relabel the same old provably ineffective (or intentionally worse than ineffective) teaching techniques as "logic" or "critical thinking".

      OBE isn't a teaching technique, its a system for evaluating educational systems and students within them (obviously, how you assess effectiveness will, in an ideal world, inform what approaches you take down the line, but OBE is not in itself a teaching technique.)

      Critical thinking skills also aren't a teaching technique, they are a subject matter that is taught. They can be taught within a system that uses traditional input-based methods of system evaluation and traditional relative-performance based evaluations students, or within a system that uses objective outcomes-based measures for both systems and students, and by any of a variety of teaching techniques independently of the system of evaluation.

      The only relation between the two is that OBE is an application of critical thinking skills to education, rather than equivalent to teaching critical thinking skills.

      (OBE, incidentally, isn't particularly a liberal thing; its more of a "run education like an efficient business" thing. Ideologues on the left and right both often oppose it, because it threatens to reveal that practices driven by ideology that are sold as effective actually, objectively, are ineffective.)

    63. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by inode_buddha · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You may be interested to know about this paper, remarkable for its perception of the conservative mentality. Its a tad frightening. The author basically posits that conservative mindset is actually based in a psychology that drives society via politics, religion, etc.

      --
      C|N>K
    64. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're averaging about one (1) lie per paragraph. I'm not going to re-read your bullshit to verify my impressions. But YES, you are a liar, and you know it.

      The only way the Right Wing can sustain itself is through dishonesty. Example:

      This is just a re-run of the long running battles in the late '80s and early '90s over new age teaching methods/using our teachers and kids as lab animals to try radical 'progressive' new ideas in teaching

      As somebody who was in high school during the 1980's (i.e. the Reagan era), I can assure the younger readers here that the typical high school was teaching that Drugs are bad and that sex causes venereal disease. For example, the idea was that for every marijuana cigarette a student smoked, they would lose x-amount of brain cells. THIS is "new age" ?!?!

      WTF!?!?!

      The parent is a Troll. And a VERY dishonest Troll.

    65. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by FrootLoops · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They want students to believe whatever they're told to believe, and never question it.

      I doubt it. I imagine they very much want Muslim students to question their beliefs. What you probably mean is that they want students to believe whatever Christian and conservative doctrine they're told and never question it.

    66. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Still slinging the ad homs, eh? Your implicit point is that geekoid is not smart enough to know that it's actually ad hominem, but instead you come off as even more of a douche because ad hom is perfectly well understood slang.

      Yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy of my calling you a douche. But sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, and sometimes you have to meet people at their level for them to understand you. (Oops! Did it again.)

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    67. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by docmordin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I just said that terms like "Higher order thinking skills" are a bunch of linguistic BULLSHIT attached to what is effectively a policy of teaching children to have a pavlovian "yessum massa!" response to politically correct buzzwords.

      If you had bothered to consult any of the literature pertaining to the concepts you are so quick to condemn, you'd know that your entire take on higher-order thinking skills is incorrect.

      To elaborate, in the past, psychologists and educational specialists have found it meaningful to partition thought into two groups, referred to as higher and lower, both of which have been rather well characterized. For instance, N. R. F. Maier ("An aspect of human reasoning", British Journal of Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 144-155, 1933; "Reasoning in rats and human beings", The Psychological Review, vol. 44, pp. 365-378, 1937), who used the terms learned behavior and reproductive learning in lieu of lower-order thinking, found that learned behavior came from contiguous experiences with previous repetitions of the relationships involved in the learned behavior pattern, e.g., memorization of multiplication tables via repeated practice. In contrast, behavior integrations that are made up of two or more isolated experiences are qualitatively different, as they arise without previous repetition, and hence constitute "reasoning" or higher-order thinking. To phrase this in a slightly different manner, "reasoning", is used to solve problems that arise when behavior is blocked because a desired end is not immediately attainable. A good example of "reasoning", that is in line with this description, is when a student that knows how to compute the area of simple geometric shapes, e.g., triangles and squares, and can see how to apply that knowledge, without guidance, to solve for the area of general polygons; in that scenario, the student has happened upon a combination of events that may have never been previously associated.

      As a second instance, F. M. Newman ("Higher order thinking in teaching social studies: A rationale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness", Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 22, 41-56, 1990) defined higher- and lower-order thinking, in virtually the same manner as Maier, based upon observations in classrooms and interviews with teachers and department chairs. That is, lower-order thinking demands only routine or mechanical application of previously acquired information, e.g., inserting numbers into established formulas or regurgitating lists of facts. On the other hand, higher-order thinking "challenges the student to interpret, analyze, or manipulate information". Furthermore, he pointed out that since individuals differ in the kinds of problems they find challenging, higher-order thinking is relative: what one person finds challenging another may find elementary; as such, to determine the extent to which the individual is involved in higher-order thinking, one would presumably need to know something about that individual's background.

      Beyond the above two examples, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles in education and psychology journals that touch on higher-order thinking and critical thinking (which are sometimes used interchangeably). In all of the ones that I have skimmed over, the overwhelming consensus is that higher-order thinking skills are critical, logical, reflective, metacognitive, or creative processes activated when one encounters unfamiliar problems, uncertainties, questions or dilemmas, and certainly are not, as you erroneously stated, "linguistic bullshit" designed to indoctrinate students.

      Oh, and before you fly off the handle and claim that I'm some brainwashed, leftist moron, let me state that all of the higher-order thinking skills I learned when I was in primary school and at university prepared me rather well for publishing papers in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Journal of the American Statistical Society, Biometrics, Biometrika, and Annals of Statistics, i.e., the top statistics journals.

    68. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 0

      > Fascism is a conservative strategy.

      Nope. Put down your cleansed history book and go hit archives of period popular publications. American Progressives, European Fascists and Russian Communists were birds of a feather. They had a heck of a mutual admiration society going on, swapping ideas and such both ways. Hitler learned the new art of Propaganda from an American Progressive, just to pick one example. Bet you didn't learn that little fact in school now did ya? When you really start to read up on it is actually hard to see exactly what WWII was fought for since FDR, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini seemed to agree on pretty much everything except who would be the ultimate ruler of the glorious future.

      Now, ready to really have your mind blown open? Google can show you the Nazi Party's Platform you know. Care to guess how many planks are virtually indistinguishable from similar ones in Democratic Party Platforms of then or now? Do you dare go count them for yourself? Go, prove me wrong! Come back and denounce me for a lying liar who lies. I must warn you, you won't like what you find.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    69. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Ooh, I'll do one:

      The conservative way: it failed because we spent too much money on it. We need to throw the whole thing out and never attempt it again because it will never work and it's making us all slaves to the federal government and killing jobs.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    70. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As if Muslim beliefs would ever be mentioned in a school set up by the current conservative leadership.

    71. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by yog · · Score: 1

      At last, an honest and courageous view from someone in the trenches of academia.

      You could also mention the official speech codes that several major universities tried to implement, the growing anti-Semitism and laser beam focus on boycotting and divesting from Israel, the intolerance displayed by students toward anyone who doesn't fit their mold, the institutionalized leftism.

      Universities have always been rather oppressive, actually, but today it seems some of them have really gone over the deep end.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    72. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by yog · · Score: 1

      It's interesting people take the view that in the bad old days, children weren't taught numeracy and literacy. Yet, a couple of generations back, people learned much better reading, writing, and speaking skills, as well as solid basic math skills. We are living in a post-literate age.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    73. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      You still haven't pointed out how having critical thinking skills is wrong for a student.
      Nobody is arguing that having critical thinking skills is wrong for a student. The whole argument is based on the fact that the summary twisted the words of the GOP which is against the PROGRAM called Higher Order Thinking Skills, not against critical thinking skills, as the HOTS program was not critical thinking at all, but merely teaching kids to memorize progressive agenda facts instead of memorizing the traditional teaching curriculum.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    74. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you find a persistent culture of leave me alone and conform to my ideals and I'll leave you alone.

      Fixed that for you. The Republicans will never give up government's power to perform the way they want you to. Neither will the Democrats.

    75. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by dark12222000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you referring to the same NSDAP platform of 1920 as declared by Adolf Hitler as I am? You know, the crazy one that burned, maimed and executed Jews, Gypsies, the handicapped, and non-whites? Because they are pretty much pure on conservative. I'll quote a few highlights here.

      "Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners."

      "Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented."

      " We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death"

      And my personal favorite (emphasis mine) "24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility."

      Aside from some *very* basic progressive ideas (parks, some basic welfare), the Nazi party is fundamentally conservative, both in it's approaches to foreigners, it's heavy usage of Christianity, and the death penalty.

      I think you're going to find FDR to be at odds with Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini at several places. Obviously, he agreed on minor points (public parks, welfare), but on most he did not. While Hitler was putting Nuremberg Decrees in place, FDR was setting up social security.

    76. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've been a "greenie" for more than 3 decades. You do not have the faintest idea how or what I think, so please stop pretending you do.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    77. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 2

      Specifically, opposing a "program" called "Higher Order Thinking Skills" abbreviated as "HOTS" is not the same as "opposing higher order thinking skills".

      It isn''t necessarily the same thing, but if the reason you're opposing it is because it might "challenge the student’s fixed beliefs" then it very well could be.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    78. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ToadProphet · · Score: 2

      Uh, no.... Fascism arose as the opposition to communism. That's why a whole lot of commie-hating, good ole boys even thought it was a great idea at first.

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    79. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      wait, what? I read what you wrote and I'm responding, but I don't understand, you see I am from Texas.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    80. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills

      So, you oppose critical thinking too?

      Critical thinking skills, which can be separated from the other things they write about have an interesting property. Critical thinking scares the bejabbers out of some folks. I have an anti-evolution screed in my library (Genesis and Evolution by M. R. Dehann) that sums up the fear of knowledge and critical thinking:

      "It is a strange paradox that the more human wisdom a man achieves, the more stupid he often becomes."

      "Such is the perversity of human nature that some of the wisest men of the world have been the greatest infidels and skeptics." "There are no atheist among the primitive nations of the earth. They have enough sense, not yet spoiled by "science, so called, to doubt the existence of God".

      End quotes. Ironically, the guy is a PhD. Educated.

      So there is an interesting relationship, I think. This guy and many others who agree with the TBE's outlook, simply don't trust education, and they hate critical thinking.

      We KNOW what is going to happen if you let a bunch of lefty trolls loose indoctrinating K-12 kids on 'critical thinking' because we have seen it already in the colleges.

      Likewise, we already know the results of the type of people who can't think critically produce. The dark ages.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    81. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jschrod · · Score: 1

      No, it's not (why they're being clobbered), and no, they're not (being nice). There is a schism in the U.S. between a more traditionalist approach to governance (what is now labeled conservative) and a neo-statist approach (what is now labeled liberal).

      Do you really think so? Astonishing.

      Recently, I read Heinlein again. The Green Hills of Earth and Revolt in 2100. For an outsider like me, it's clear: you're heading towards a totalitarian society, as imagined by Heinlein, and you don't even recognize it -- just as he wrote. As an author to understand you aliens, he's quite successful, even after all those years.

      Good luck, and here's me hoping that some of your next's generation will make it to civilization, you'll need it. And then, you're welcome, to the rest of the world, to us...

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    82. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      but how is wind power bad?

      And I don't really know anyone who thinks wind power is bad.

      And not all liberals come from portland.

      And I'm a actually a moderate.

      And since when is progress a bad thing?

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    83. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      If you replace every instance of "LIBERAL" with "Socialist", a good half of your parody becomes sadly accurate.

      Greatest monsters indeed.

    84. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a neo-statist approach

      Actually, a statist approach would be a conservative approach. After all, that's exactly what conservative means.... conserving the current state, sticking to historical habits, etc. And again, you illustrate my point beautifully: no one's calling you on your bullshit redefinition of what it means to be conservative.

      The left's intellectual foundation is the universities where most social science profs and their students have for four decades or more been left-leaning if not Marxist.

      1) What's wrong with working at universities?
      2) What's wrong with being left?
      3) You're employing a tautology to imply a negative connotation with being left-leaning. In other words, you're demonizing your opposition as not even being able to have a valid opinion.
      4) You have no idea what a Marxist is. As a matter of fact, you don't even know what a political center is.

      Obama represents that tradition; he comes from the ivory tower culture, he thinks of the rural whites as "clinging to their guns and religion", and he brooks no disagreement.

      Argument from assertion. Not to mention that "he brooks no disagreement" is a hilarious position to take after George "I'm the decider" Bush was never once challenged on anything by the conservative "small government" people.

      , but if you spend some time in the Southwest and the western states, except for the Pacific coastal region, you find a persistent culture of leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

      Is that what you call people who fire gays for being gay, who try to tell people what to do in the bedroom, and who will also consider you a lesser human if you believe in the wrong book? There's a big difference between an economical and a social laissez-faire position.

      Rightly or wrongly, this is what they want whether they admit it or not.

      Now you're implying you know someone's "true" mind, even if it contradicts what they're saying or doing. In other words, you are making shit up about a person, just so that you can lump them in a particular group.

      Some of our greatest thinkers in decades past came off the farm, grew up going to a one room schoolhouse, spent more time out of doors than in a library, and so forth, yet this didn't seem to hold them back.

      Argument from example. For every Abe Lincoln, there was a Ben Franklin.

      They developed a uniquely American kind of independent thinking relatively free from the peer pressure of the eastern university environment.

      Argument from myth. American exceptionalism is just like English, German, French, Chinese, or even Icelandic exceptionalism: a post-hoc justification for uniqueness based on a mythical interpretation of an abstract origin story and national character creation.

      Yeah. The only thing you're missing is the common insults. Although at this point, for some people, calling someone Marxist is exactly that.

      Finally....

      The opening post is an expression of anger and frustration at elements of our society who want to reprogram children to be more "open" to their particular world views.

      I'm amazed that teaching critical thinking, as opposed to memorization, is now "reprogramming". Not to mention that I find your implication hilarious: that they were already programmed. In other words, you're just complaining that your programming is being overwritten with someone else's program.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    85. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      catastrophic insurance plans (under obamacare)
      If Obamacare eliminates catastrophic insurance than they have written it exactly backwards. Insurance IS catastrophic insurance. If they were trying to make healthcare more efficient, they would eliminate low deductible plans, copays, co-insurance and all that crap and make everybody pay the first $5,000 or so.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    86. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh.

    87. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Nazi - National Socialist.

      Socialism is the political ideology that wants to manage everything for the "good" of society.

      Such as removing Jews and other undesirables from society, for its own "good". Businesses were to do what the Nazi state wanted, or face nationalization - which really means all businesses exist at the pleasure of gov't. Nationalized businesses sound like unfettered capitalism to you?

      Look up the wiki page on Nazi-ism, and you'll note that they had "anti-Capitalist" tendencies - that's because they were a socialist ideology.

      They also opposed Communism, but that's because they were National socialists, as opposed to international socialists.

    88. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jschrod · · Score: 2

      That explains your "Score:5, Informative". Good old Slashdot. I wonder why I even visit here anymore.

      Because you replying to his signature and not to his actual actual content is a real hall mark for /. discussion culture? With your low numeric id, you're the living proof that /. always had it's share of idiots; sad as it is.

      *PLONK*

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    89. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fascism arose as

      competition

      to communism.

      It competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism, while promising to save the national ethnic identities that communism wished to erase.

      Fascism and communism are both totalitarian ideologies that still have much in common despite their differences.

      Think of the difference between the Catholicism and Protestantism. Similar theologies, yet still different enough that they waged many a war with each other.

    90. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Darby · · Score: 2, Funny

      A dune sage brush lizard bit my sister once...

    91. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote :- Hitler was a liberal, Satan too
      No wonder your an a Anonymous Coward.... you need to get your facts right Hitler was a Natzi . Nobody knows what Satan's political straight where.. not even the catholics, Have you forgot that God's teachings are Liberalism. Love and help thy n neighbor, if he's hungry give him bread, if he's thirsty give him water. if he should strike you turn the other cheek,
       

    92. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, were progressives? Is the US educational system really that fucked up that it equates totalitarian dictators with what are basically "social democrats"?

      Progressivism: "Is not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic" - Center for American Progress.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    93. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree the GOP is right about some things, even if they are completely bat-shit crazy about others.

      There's two cancers eating education, the "Outcome Based Education" movement, and excessive testing.

      The "Outcome Based Education" movement is based on getting students to generate lots of "evidence" that they have learnt something. Learning isn't sitting in class, listening to the teacher (or discussing stuff, or doing drill work). Learning isn't preparing for exams. Learning is doing formal assessment, preferably for 14 hours a day. Sure, they can advertise it as "Education designed to achieve outcomes, based on sound evidence", but not every movement is exactly what it says on the tin. From it's own website, "Scientology is a religion that offers a path to full self realization and spiritual awareness and ability. The word Scientology means “the study of knowledge” or literally “knowing how to know”.".

      Excessive testing is pretty similar in a way. You have to learn how to pass the test. Since education is competitive, you have to learn how to pass the test better than everyone else.

      In both cases, everything revolves around assessment. There's no slack, in which to explore anything. Of course, the tests and assignments are often easy to cheat on, so now everything revolves around cheating on tests and assignments. I'm using "cheating" in a broad sense - cramming past papers is cheating, in a sense, because you are preparing for the test instead of learning the subject.

      There's always some idiot who says "The problem isn't students focusing on assessment; the problem is the assessment should be better, so the students can't cheat it". Fine. Communism didn't fail because it's a bad system, it failed because the Commissars didn't set the right performance targets. But it still failed, and so does our education system.

    94. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe we should try to frame the problem here better and get out of this massive exercise in left wing/right wing trolling and counter trolling. This is not an interesting discussion so far. I often wonder is this deterioration in discourse:

      A) Deterioration of /. discourse
      B) Deterioration and polarization of American discourse
      C) Deterioration of global discourse, and this Internet things is actually not all good
      D) Discourse has always sucked, its just getting really obvious thanks to the Internet

      One problem with education is we've turned our system in to a bunch of monoliths where state school boards, political parties and ivory tower liberal intellectuals get to dictate cirriculum and teaching methods to millions of unfortunate kids who are locked in to public schools in a particular state and cant afford to escape to private schools with cirricula of their choice.

      Believe it or not all of those kids are actually different. Some of them would probably thrive in Montessori schools learning higher order thinking skills (lower case since using HOTS is apparently trolling). They might go on to found Amazon and Google and become global leaders.

      Some kids will be lucky to manage memorizing crap for 12 years, make it out with a diploma, and find a high paying career in factory work, burger flipping or roughnecking.

      We do actually need more people with higher order thinking skills, intense creativity and the ability and willingness to challenge entrenched thinking. Competing for low wage factory jobs with the Chinese is not something to aspire to.

      One solution I wish could happen would be to move education entirely online and let parents and, gasp!, children gravitate to the curricula and methodologies that work for them. The one key benefit is kids wouldn't be locked in to the rigid ideologies of the school boards and communites they happen to be stuck living in, whether it be left or right wing. The coolness of the Internet is people from all over the world can get together and do interesting things together, and escape the trap of locality.

      The reason this wont work is, face it, public schools today are primarily to provide subsidized day care since the new economy demands both parents work full time unless they are affluent. The affluent then go to private schools. Schools are also there to socialize kids and you kind of need to lock them all in rooms together with authority figures dictating societal doctrine to do that. Actual dducation is at least third on the list if not lower.

      And since this comment is already too long part II will be in a different post

      --
      @de_machina
    95. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They know they're not being consistent and they don't care. Consistency is for restaurants and Nazis."

      If the playing field of democracy does not involve consistency in some ways, why even bother to take part and not simply blow evil people's heads off?

    96. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      unfortunately, the gop rejects science pretty much as an axiom...

      No, they don't. You'll see tons of evidence that they do, this article for example, but most of the time, they are flat out misquoted or quoted out of context, or even misunderstood. See, libertarians and conservatives tend to have a distrust of government and a stronger trust on self reliance. These are the people you see living in the country, growing their own food, or digging bunkers, filling them with canned goods and ammo and buying water filtration systems. So when government comes along and says, "We have to take your truck away because it's global warming and we know best", you can understand why they might be a bit skeptical. When they ask for evidence, the best they can get is a UN report. The only thing a libertarian and a conservative trust less than government is a WORLD government!

      Now, when I was in school, I was told that scientists ALWAYS ask questions and scientist ALWAYS challenge assumptions. Never take anything for granted, my 9th grade science teacher told us. She even pounding in the point by giving us an experiment to do from the book that was actually flawed. We were told to boil water, time how long it took to boil, and then have our partner do the same with salt water to see which one boiled first. The result... depended on the burner we used. See, the book never told us to use the same burner for both batches of water. Some burners were simply hotter than others. The point of the experiment? Challenged everything, even what we THINK we know.

      So, again, when anyone at all challenges what the THINK we know, global warming, for example, they are instantly discredited and never heard from again as a reputable source. After all, no credible scientists challenges global warming. Any scientist that questions it is obviously not credible! How many times have you heard people that question man made global warming compared to "Flat Earthers"? These are people with PHD's who have made careers in scientific fields. They are NOT flat eathers, but they will be called that. So, you have to excuse those that approach the whole idea with a bit of suspicion.

      Another quick example of scientific spending would be, a quick glance of NASA's budget over the past two presidents shows that Bush spent roughly the same amount of money that Clinton did on NASA.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    97. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, I used to believe like you still do, that they are just ignorant. I no longer do. I now believe many of them are truly evil."

      50% troll, 50% insightful, with a score of 2.

      It's hard to understate how profoundly disturbing that 50% insightful is.

    98. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who noticed that he's angry that liberals are banning "catastrophic insurance plans"? I mean, why would that be a bad thing? Also, I don't remember us starting wars in any of those countries. We've PARTICIPATED in the war in Libya, but that was to make sure that Ghaddafi was removed per the people of Libya's wishes. I'm not aware of us having any involvement in Yemen or Syria other than strongly worded resolutions condemning the murder of civilians. I suppose that Conservatives are pro-murdering-civilians then?

    99. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I looked up OBE on Wikipedia and cannot find the part that shows it to be a cartoonish liberal brainwashing tool straight out of Glenn Beck's fevered nightmares. Show me some evidence, or I will consider your entire post to be the rantings of a madman as it rests entirely on this assertion.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    100. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by yog · · Score: 0

      How nice. Plonk right back at you.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    101. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I honestly can't tell what your point is. Are you somehow comparing banning sodas and popcorn to women's rights, freedom of speech, freedom of sexuality, and *real* freedom of religion (i.e., not this BS "you don't believe my fundamentalist Christian beliefs, therefore you are forcing them on me")?

      I might sympathize with you on the Affordable Care Act, except for the fact that the GOP *has no credible alternative*.

      The pro-choice thing I might sympathize with you on too, except that the GOP isn't exactly tearing down doors to stop the death penalty, and pro-choice is intractible enough that the real American answer is to "don't have an abortion if you don't want one, and keep your nose out of other people's business."

      I'm tired of the GOP bitching about what the Democrats are doing wrong, rather than solving any @#($U*^ problems. Why the hell aren't they out there advocating for deregulation of licensure, prescription laws (and drug laws along with it), to decrease costs that way?

      The GOP is crippling this country by doing nothing--they're obstructionist, without solving problems. They don't serve the country, they serve Grover Norquist.

      The Democratic partry has it's problems, but the GOP is infinitely more fd up now. I would *love* to see the GOP I once knew, that was pragmatically libertarian. Not this BS social conservatives-in-sheeps-clothing nonsense, whoring to the financial elite who deserve a fraction of the money they make.

      If you want to see eerie parallels, go read about Franco and the Spanish Civil War. Replace catholicism with your choice of southern fundamentalist christian.

    102. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by yog · · Score: 1

      What's astonishing is that you wasted the time posting this nonsense. Why not discuss the facts instead of resorting to sarcasm and making meaningless references to an ultra-political author, who, ironically, was as anti-government as one can get.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    103. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by demachina · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The really fascinating issue in this submission to me is the part about schools doing things which challenge "'student's fixed beliefs' and undermine 'parental authority'"

      Do we have to conceed that parents should have some control over the things their children are taught in public education?

      Do we have to conceed that students should be allowed to have fixed beliefs which should go unchallenged by educators?

      There is so much essence of civilization in these questions. On one hand you want to have some continuity in belief systems because they are an anchor for civilizations. If you completely throw them out and start over every generation it will be chaos. The Texas Republicans are advocating this continuity and its not totally unreasonable.

      On the other hand, what happens when parents and students have belief systems that have gone totally rigid to the point of being dead or worst case gone, completely off the rails. Using education to maintain bad belief systems just because they are the prevailing belief system seems like a truly horrible idea.

      I personally wrankle at the concept that this party platform seems to advocate locking children in to the belief system of their parents until they are 18. You ever wonder why kids tend to veer hard left when the hit college. Its because they are compensating for being locked in to the usually conservative belief systems of their aging parents, along with churches they were compelled to attend, and schools many of which are idealogically suffocating due to the often conservative tendencies of state and local school boards.

      Seems to me there is a chance the idealogy being promoted in Texas might produce two divirgent sets of children.

      A) Reactionary automatons who are going to go through life locked in to the ideaology they were indoctrinated in to as children and fear or hate everyone not adhering to it

      B) Radicals who are going to reject everything the system attempted to indoctrinate in to them and probably try to blow up that system every chance they get.

      The two group will eventually land on /. and proceed to troll the crap out of each other, like tonight.

      --
      @de_machina
    104. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      To be fair they avoided using evolution in the quoted segment. There IS a great deal of question as to how life came about, we have plausible hypotheses (sp?) such as the Miller-Urey experiments, but no definitive proof of how life originated.

      Of course you and I both know that the the PLAN is to use that to teach Creationism in place of Evilution, but that's not what they are saying in that section.

    105. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

      Nowhere else do you find such an intolerant monoculture as the tenured elite in their ivory towers.

      Really? You must have gone to a very special school. In mine, there was a great diversity of opinion bordering on the ludicrous in some cases among the tenured, and several had what would amount to openly declared wars between them if they were nation-states. Then again, they taught me to think critically and analytically, precisely because of the varied viewpoints among them. The students certainly weren't single minded either.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    106. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing novel or experimental about it. Teaching children to think critically and question beliefs is exactly what good teachers have been doing for centuries, and has long been considered to be one of the essential goals of education.

      No shit. It's called the Socratic Method.

      The Texas GOP is saying the Socratic Method is bad because it might lead children to think differently than their parents.

      If that isn't an example of how messed up the Texas GOP is, I don't know what is. It's as about as close as you can get to "we don't want our children to be literate because they might read something and come to their own conclusions."

      Holy hell. I couldn't imagine that Texas was anymore fucked up than I already thought, but somehow they've managed to show me otherwise.

    107. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > And since when was Michael Bloomberg a liberal?

      He was a Democrat in NYC his entire life; right up until he wanted to run for mayor and hit the cold hard reality that as a Jew he had zero chance of winning as a D in that city and suddenly became a Republican. Which he remained until he won and then became an 'Independent' Nanny State progressive.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    108. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by yog · · Score: 1

      It seems that you misunderstood the OP, and you don't understand his criticism of the summary. Since it's already been discussed ad nauseam I won't rehash it. You also appear to have a very narrow and limited set of experiences upon which to draw. I suggest you read more widely, and try addressing the issues rather than this kind of tedious, line by line rebuttal that misses the basic point. This is what I get for trying to argue with a geek, I suppose.

      Arizona is tolerant in a different way than New York City or Cambridge, Mass., are tolerant. The latter places enforce a top-down, one-size-fits-all kind of tolerance, while the Westerners simply leave each other alone. There are mixed race couples all over the place in Phoenix, for example. There are certainly conservative pockets where LBGT types might not feel too welcome, such as the Mormon or fundamentalist communities, but there's very little in the way of violence against them that's ever reported. It's possible they experience job discrimination and such, though; I don't know, not being one, and not being in touch with their community.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    109. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he doesn't mean that "higher order thinking skills" are bullshit.. he said that the terms "higher order thinking skills" "logic" "critical thinking" and others have been coopted by the left as compliance with their ideology. largely, he's correct, but the neocon right does this too in their institutions. it's too bad really.. having real, age appropriate logic and critical thinking skills classes in every grade would go a long way to fix the problems we have. they would give a higher level bullshit filter to every citizen for use in detecting propaganda.

    110. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by retchdog · · Score: 1

      much of global warming isn't science, in the strong sense. it's statistics (or, if you want, you can call it an "inverse problem"). i don't mean this as a slur; i am a statistician, after all. it's just not what i was referring to. i was referring to biology; geology; cosmology; and the theory of relativity. but, i'm very glad that you boiled water on a kettle. jumping christ on a pogo stick, it makes me cringe that you even bring that up as if it's some meaningful lesson.

      and nasa has been a political slush-fund/component of the spin machine for decades. it's not worthless, but neither does its funding indicate very much.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    111. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      sorry but concepts like good and evil are subjective.. what you should watch out for are people who start throwing those terms around as justification for action. there are plenty of these across the spectrum.

    112. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Except what the left means by "critical thinking" is re-education, training in a few approved algorithms to deconstruct traditional beliefs, where the results justify the process. The right may encourage blind obedience to authority, but every leftist movement has explicitly approved of propaganda, censorship, and brainwashing to give the illusion of free thought.

    113. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Darby · · Score: 0

      I mean, you're argument almost always have come down to ad hom attacks.

      I think you meant ad hominem but since it does not apply I'm not sure.

      So, to be clear:

      You recognized the common abbreviation he used and chose that as your sole point of rebuttal. Was this to appear more rational by ignoring the grammatical errors while maintaining an air of ignorance as if that elevated you above a ordinary grammar nazi troll?

      This is exactly the inability to understand basic critical thinking skils which along with religious extremism and making a fetish of bootlicking the rich have become the planks of the post-Reagan GOP platform we've been saddled with ever since Barry Goldwater pointed out the dangers of dragging the religious nutters out of their welfare boonies.

    114. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."

      That explains your "Score:5, Informative". Good old Slashdot. I wonder why I even visit here anymore.

      And yet you found the time to add an even more informative and insightful post about someone's signature.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    115. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by demachina · · Score: 2

      Not sure why you managed to veer off in to global warming but lets get all scientific and start out really simply.

      Would you conceed that there is a possibility that there might be consequences to releasing significant amounts of CO2 in to Earth's atmosphere, or Methane, another even worse green house gas. I'm not saying they are even bad effects but would you conceed there might be effects.

      "Bush spent roughly the same amount of money that Clinton did on NASA."

      NASA hasn't been particularly about "scientific spending" for a while. NASA is mostly a high tech jobs program, being viciously defended by the congress people with NASA centers or major contractors in their districts. Promising to spend money on manned space programs in particular is pretty crucial to winning votes in parts of Florida and you may have noticed Florida is closely divided and really important to getting elected President. As a result Presidents routinely advocate big manned space programs like Clinton/Gore's NASP or Bush's Return to the Moon, lots of money is spent on them in Florida and Texas and the program is routinely killed by the next President before anything launches.

      P.S.

      Last night you said CONGRESS sets these budgets and the President has nothing to do with it, so you just contradicted yourself talking about how Clinton and Bush do these things which, gasp, effect the economy.

      --
      @de_machina
    116. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

      The dems need to bring on a few bulldogs. Young people, millenial age maybe, who really couldnt give a damn about who they piss off. Who will call bull shit what it is, right to the faces that spew it. I mean congress would be mildly better than ones parents basement, so we dont have anything to lose.

    117. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's break this down for those watching at home. Yog just got his pithy partisan post pulverized, point by point. He offers, as a rebuttal, a heaping helping of condescension, along with the timeless classic, "You don't understand." He's going to lose points for the "geek" bit though - this is Slashdot, after all.

      This is AC, signing off and reminding you folks to keep alliterating.

    118. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Questioning everything is merely the beginning of the journey of scientific knowledge.

      The point of the process is that every acting theory should have a well-defined set of failure criteria, result data from previous experiments, and steps to reproduce the results should anyone care to challenge the theory. Anyone is free to question the body of results so far, but to be taken seriously at all, he/she must provide a new body of result data which contradicts the theory and steps to reproduce it so others can verify it.

      The problem is that most of the time you see a scientific theory in the news, the GOP stops at the first step - questioning anything that conflicts with their worldview. If global warming or evolution or gravitation or relativity or radioactive decay rates or whatever else have holes, I'm sure at a loss in finding the experimental data from people trying to disprove them. Sure, in some cases, it's a specialized- or trivial- enough spec of the natural world that no one bothers to exert much effort to discount existing theory, but are you suggesting global warming is without challengers?

      I don't think I can go longer than a few months without seeing some new finding that "disproves" global warming, only to be discredited later. The reason public discourse has now shifted to how severe the results of global warming may be is because the (very well-funded) groups trying to disprove global warming have nothing to show for their work, and perhaps they have thrown in the towel.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    119. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that this argument hinges on the belief that all Democrats are liberal. Obama and Bloomberg are center-right.

      But if it makes it difficult to reconcile the silliness inherent to politics, by all means embrace this false belief.

    120. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Specifically, opposing a "program" called "Higher Order Thinking Skills" abbreviated as "HOTS" is not the same as "opposing higher order thinking skills".

      It isn''t necessarily the same thing, but if the reason you're opposing it is because it might "challenge the student's fixed beliefs" then it very well could be.

      "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
      A purpose of challenging a student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority is different from doing the same as a side effect.

    121. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by IICV · · Score: 1

      Oh my gosh really? You can't buy sodas in New York any more?

    122. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ToadProphet · · Score: 1

      Fascism and communism are both totalitarian ideologies that still have much in common despite their differences.

      No, in theory communism is not totalitarian. In fact it's the opposite - the workers, rather than the state, have control. In Marx's view, the state would wither away after a transition period. Of course that's the utopian view, the ideology has been hijacked enough times to say with some certainty that the ideal of communism is near impossible to achieve.

      What's also important is that the Nazis railed against the notion of the workers, or people, having control. They bemoaned the bureaucracy and ineffectiveness, and posited that a strong, central fascist state was the answer. At that point they weren't even fighting against what communism was to become, they were actually opposed to the ideal.

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    123. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Yes. You see there are parts of Texas where wind farming might actually be profitable someday. So of course the greens went right to work finding a mascot to rally around to stop any such notion. Cue the Dune Sagebrush Lizard.

      With progressives it is never what they say in public that should be considered, but what they say when they don't think anyone else is listening to some boring CSPAN crap. It isn't about alternative energy, it is about forcing people to use LESS energy, period. So a successful 'alternative' source is just as bad a coal from their perspective.

      You really have been watching too much Fox News. I think some critical thinking might help you out, but I doubt it'd take. Green energy doesn't care about how much energy you use, but the environmental impact of what you use. If you could use all the energy you wanted but have zero environmental impact, I'm pretty sure the greens would care less about how much you use.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    124. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

      Oh Bullshit.

      This is about teaching kids to think. Republicans don't like that because it's hard to be a bible-believing Republican and think at the same time.

      Here's what this is about. My mom was a damn good 5th grade teacher. She taught them how to read, write and use science to understand the world. She taught them about geology too, including how the continents move. Once at the beginning of the year a parent asked her not to teach plate tectonics because they, "didn't believe in that." This is exactly what the fuck they are talking about here. God forbid we actually teach kids something that goes against what their illiterate, snake-handling preacher's "fixed beliefs." Maybe we would do better if instead of telling kids what not to think about, parents go to bookstore and buy their pre-kindergartners some books that don't all begin with "Holy" and end with "Bible."

      And by the way, you say we "know how to teach Reading, Writing and Math." Really? Please go sign up to teach at your local high school, because we don't "know" the best way to teach those things. That's because every student learns differently. We know some good techniques, but we are still learning about how the brain learns. American Education isn't perfect, but it's flaws have little to do with your political pet peeves.

    125. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Clearly, you're not a "leftist moron," but I would like to know why you hate America and want the terrorists to win.

      All you liberal communists are always exactly the same by brutally purging all dissent marching in rabid lockstep to the beat of the Kenyan Stalinist Nazi Pretender's jackboots against the empty hollow shell of the Consintution with everyone shouting:
      War is peas.
      Freedum is slavery.
      Ingorunts is strangth.

      I"LL NEVER SUBMIT TO BEING FORCED TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN BECAUSE PRESIDENT HUSSEIN HAS YOUSERPED THE CONTISTUTION: GOD"S LAW!

      How do respond to that, smart guy!?

    126. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you looked at a skeleton?

    127. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by kubernet3s · · Score: 1

      Now, I know there are schools with MORE than 50,000 students: it's not the BIGGEST. But how is that considered "small"?

    128. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "good progressive doubleplus good thinker "

      So critical thinking - that is, NOT accepting everything you're told unquestioningly as fact - is Orwellian?

      Nice backspin there.

    129. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by djchristensen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny thing is, I think the far right would have just as much a problem with "higher order thinking skills" as they appear to have with "Higher Order Thinking Skills", especially given the part at the end, "... and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." I think that last part is why anyone more towards the middle of the political spectrum might misinterpret what the GOP was explicitly saying and might legitimately believe that between the lines, the GOP really is opposing critical thinking skills. Can't have the littl'uns questionin' authority or back-talkin' their Momma and Daddy.

    130. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      NAZI = german acronym for national socialist..

    131. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > And since when is progress a bad thing?

      Progress is not an end, it is a means at best. Progress to WHAT is the right question. And to Progressives it is the same sunny uplands of history that Stalin and Mao have already littered with corpses. Only difference is, as Jonah Goldberg observed in _LIberal Fascism_, that American progressives want to do it quietly, sneaky, with a smiley face instead of a rifle butt to the head.

      Progress implies there is but one way, Forward! Which is of course intentional.

      Let us instead debate the various possible futures and choose one. I will argue for one with more personal freedom and personal responsibility at the expense of less security. Let others argue for trading liberty for security and we shall see if the government schools have erased all memory of a certain Founding Father's opinon of that trade.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    132. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) "

      So, class, do "they" oppose all Higher Order Thinking Skills or just those that are relabeled Outcome Based Education? Where do you suppose "they" would have put the period if the goal of the sentence was to portray opposition to all HOTS?

      Use your critical thinking skills and reading comprehension. Once you figured it out and come to terms with the fact that it's doesn't actually say what the trolls want you to think it says, you may go to recess.

      As a bonus, you can write a few paragraphs discussing what it says about Slashdot that most everyone is so ready to believe what the original poster wanted them to believe.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    133. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by unitron · · Score: 0

      It's very simple, being on the right nowadays requires a willing suspension of sanity.

      And so I hold my nose and vote for the only candidates opposing them that actually have a chance to win.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    134. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Don't be a coward. Post under your account name and take the Kama hit.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    135. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Not Democratic. See how a name is irrelevant?

      Socialism = "social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy". Nazis were fascist corporatists, not socialists. They controlled the means of production and heavily managed the economy.

      National socialists as opposed to international socialists? Huh?

    136. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by unitron · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as they didn't steal your baby in the outback...

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    137. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But everyone here seems to think they know what "conservatives" think.

      If you and your crowd are going to paint with broad brushes, don't bitch and moan when you get some paint on yourself.

    138. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      A link to the Huffington Post, which links to Reddit, which links to a pamphlet that evidently is written a few grade levels above the Reddit poster's.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    139. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Apparently your teachers were opposed to teaching reading comprehension skills.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    140. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 0

      So then you should be firmly against teaching the 2 + 2 =5 if it makes Johnny feel good about himself.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    141. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I imagine they very much want Muslim students to question their beliefs.

      I appreciate your sentiments but if all of the world's Muslims suddenly took up Christianity, these bags of shit would quickly manufacture another conflict for us to slaughter each other over.

    142. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by unitron · · Score: 1

      The liberals did take a good page out of 1984 by learning how to warp and manipulate language to fit their own agenda.

      I thought the current world record holder for that was Frank Luntz.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    143. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

      "It's just impossible to codify "critical thinking,"

      To an extent. I think Carl Sagan did a pretty good job of it. When I taught critical thinking to my students, this was pretty much the model I used.

      http://users.tpg.com.au/horsts/baloney.html

    144. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why the late George Carlin was right, Language matters and we ALL must be on our guard to keep those that want to warp and twist us from using language to take away our ability to fight back with reason.

      Its like how they changed "bible in the classroom" into intelligent design, shell shock into post traumatic stress disorder (which still sounds like PMS more than battlefield trauma to me) or how they took an easy to understand word like rapist and replaced it with sex offender which frankly can mean just about any damned thing just depending on the state you are in.

      That is why you are right and we have to point out these "weasel words" as i call them, because they are nothing more than attempts to twist language to make an issue harder to understand or harder to argue against.

      And let me finish by saying thank whatever deity you believe in for home schooling, because I have met some of the kids my oldest would have graduated with if he and his brother wouldn't have been taken out of school by us and....damn, these kids are lucky if they can count their damned change while my oldest is on the dean's list and kicking ass through pre-med.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    145. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 0

      Because our school should be all about telling the children that mommy and daddy are fucking morons and nothing they've told you is true.

      Belief in Santa Claus at 4 and 5 is a "fixed belief". Would you suggest schools challenge this? We can't have happy children living in innocence now can we? Let's rip away all that crap and teach them that life is hard, people want to fuck you over and there's pretty much nothing you can do except fuck them over first. Oh...and that Santa is a gay pedophile.

      All that crap about what is right and wrong? Your parents are full of it. Right is what feels good. Wrong is what stops you from feeling good.

      You should work on your HOTS.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    146. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      "and proceed to troll the crap out of each other, like tonight."

      ROFLMAO!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    147. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 0

      "spade a spade"

      Ahem...now you are racist.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    148. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      You also appear to have a very narrow and limited set of experiences upon which to draw.

      It's possible they experience job discrimination and such, though; I don't know, not being one, and not being in touch with their community.

      Hilarious. The irony is coming hard and fast.

      I understand the OP's criticism. I also understand that it is not based on fact, logic or normally accepted definitions.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    149. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      You buy a big screen TV and it doesn't work and you can't take it back. Do you throw it out? Yes.
      Do you then go to that same store and buy the same TV? No.
      Are you working longer and longer to pay "your fair share"? Yes.
      Is the Unemployment rate at 8+% after having been near or over 10% Yes.

      Empirical works great when deciding courses of action. And recognizing when you are being scammed a second time by the same people IS a HOTS.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    150. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by demachina · · Score: 1

      What ideology would that be exactly? Pretty sure that was the least ideological post I've seen on this topic tonight?

      --
      @de_machina
    151. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, its better to elect evil people that proclaim they will enact evil policies, and then consistently do so, than to elect good people who occasionally enact excessive measures in the name of the common good. I prefer unadulterated sociopathy to neurotic, flawed human beings.

    152. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by couchslug · · Score: 2

      Amusing how the superstitions of the Middle East resemble each other.

      "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

      Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    153. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by demachina · · Score: 0

      Anyone who expects to be "taken seriously" around here is delusional.

      Back in the good ole days /. was a pretty good place to debate. Now its just an ugly partisan free-for-all, everyone has already picked sides and its just an exercise in trolling & counter trolling. It seems to reflect the decline of discourse in America quite well.

      To me /. is just rhetorical sport these days.

      --
      @de_machina
    154. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1
      Maybe it's my extreme interest in the evolution vs. creation debate, but when they use terms like "challenge 'student's fixed beliefs' and undermine 'parental authority'", it smells to me exactly like this is all done up by creationists that are desperately trying to find yet an even more backdoor way to undermine biology teaching of evolution and doing everything they can not to expose their kids to ideas that don't support their home-taught Christian beliefs.

      The exact language of the article in encouraging "critical thinking" (read: allowing questioning of evolutionary theory on religious grounds) and "students' fixed beliefs" (the same) leads me to believe that this entire discussion, in Rick Perry's state no less, is entirely religiously/Creationist motivated.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    155. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ideology would that be exactly? Pretty sure that was the least ideological post I've seen on this topic tonight?

      Douche Bag of the Year Award submission qualifications:

      ...

      #7) Referring to a post a post you authored as "the least ideological post I've seen".

      ...

    156. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Darby · · Score: 0

      Progressivism/Socialism/Fascism/Communism/etc; all branches of the same diseased tree.

      Fascism, along with Monarchy, Aristocracy and Theocracy are the real world instantiations of the right.
      America defined itself by its opposition to the right in the American Revolution. In both World Wars we were on the side of Liberalism and the left against the right.
      Only in the fringe extreme does the left start looking a lot like the right, but the right starts there.

      Fundamentally, the definingly Liberal hallmark of America ("We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal.") is a value the left believes in but thinks further that the power of the state should be used to enforce said equality. The problem with the left only comes in the extremes when equality under the law becomes the Spartan ideal that no man can own more than another (except, of course that some pigs are more equal than others) and that the power of the state should be used to enforce that equality.
      The right is defined by the pigs who are more equal in that the only purpose of the state is to enforce that inequality for their benefit on the backs of everybody else.

      This is why the rise of the right in America post WW2 which started spiraling into hell with Reagan defines the demolition of the great experiment.

      The detritus one can use as evidence includes yourself and your failure to even be capable of understanding the basic definitions. The representatives of the Crown, the Aristocracy and the church sat on the right.

    157. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoaa dude, take a breath. You're going to give yourself an a aneurysm.

      Two things. First, regardless of what you think about "fixed beliefs", the implication the GP was making is fallacious. Even if we accept the axiom that "A does not imply B", it does not necessarily follow that "A implies not B". Replace "A" with "opposing a program call HOTS (TM)" and "B" with "opposes actual higher order thinking skills". Just because they oppose HOTS doesn't mean they oppose actual critical thinking. But conversely it doesn't necessarily mean they don't either.

      Second, Reductio ad absurdum much? <sarcasm>Yes that's clearly what I was proposing</sarcasm>. Please. How about I characterize your argument as

      "Why bother teaching any critical thinking skills at all. Whatever dumb-ass thing little Billy wants to believe is just fine. Think the world is flat? No problem! Convinced you'll catch cooties if you hold hands with a girl? Hey if you believe it, it must be true."

      Look, critical thinking skills sometimes require you to think critically about your established beliefs. If you're not allowed to do anything that might challenge an established belief you're not going to get very far.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    158. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by aklinux · · Score: 1

      Here, here. Makes it obvious why the poster chose anonymous.

    159. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      You just can't make up this stuff, every paragraph in this PDF is Genius!!! Hilarious stuff in there...

      "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      You can if you're a Republican.

    160. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Hm. My experience has been that academia is ruthlessly critical of everyone involved, from undergrad to world authority, and tenure basically means "you have more than five years of job security... so long as you can continue to fund your own activities and preferably pay yourself."

      But then I'm in science. Perhaps other fields are different.

    161. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      . Thus he is proposing instead that students are taught to never question anything told to them, no matter what that might be, or how correct or not it may be, to accept at face value everything they see, and to never make up their own mind on anything.

      That approach has been wildly successful in Texas. Everybody in their political elite thinks that way.

    162. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by fferreres · · Score: 1

      Why? If I earn 250k a year, those $5000 I factor in as part of the cost. If I make 40k (family) it just means I am guaranted to nOt be able to afford it. How is your solution awesome?

      The problem is not the insurance, but the actual cost of health services and they way the services are oversold, and prices not transparent. One is not even quoted the prices before incurring them. The economic model for health is broken, not the insurance itself.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    163. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      I'd rather teach a student how to find out about George Washington (and analyze the difference sources) then have the students memorize facts about George Washington.

      Teaching students to think allows them to teach themselves.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    164. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record, that phrase is only racist if you, the reader, associate the word "spade" with "black person", instead of what the idiom actually refers to ("pointy shovel").

    165. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      I'd say that economically, Fascism is as close to Communism as it is to Capitalism. The the middle between the two ideas.

      Socially, yes, they both were totalitarian.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    166. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm trying to figure out how being valued for your knowledge and wisdom became a bad thing in this country.

      It became a "bad thing" the moment those holding knowledge and wisdom were no longer taking it from an ancient book.

    167. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There is immense scientific controversy regarding evolution. Look up "kin selection" sometime for an example. There's much less controversy about the general idea, mostly because nobody has really ever come up with a serious challenger.

      Since it's Texas, you're probably right, but a good classroom WOULD have a class discussion about ID and evolution, comparing them, discussing e idence and arguments on each side, how one is falsifiable and makes testable predictions and the other doesn't, and is therefore objectively challengable while the other isn't....

    168. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      I think there is a general outline to being a libertarian. The issue comes down to practicing libertarians not applying the phrase "That more liberty is better than less." to things they dislike.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    169. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by elloGov · · Score: 1

      "Liberals" aren't banning you from sodas nor the size of sodas you can drink. They are restricting business establishments from serving single large portions of soda to the public. This doesn't outlaw you buying a 32oz cup and pouring your soda into it and drinking it on the streets. You just can't conduct business and serve those portions.

      Considering the diabetes epidemic, this is exactly what I want my government to regulate. It takes your body very little time to break down high fructose syrup (one part glucose and one part glucose) resulting in massive sugar spikes. This is responsible legislation.

    170. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CajunArson puts up propaganda that makes anyone with similar attitudes seem like lunatics. CajunArson has not learned to appreciate the irony oh this effort.

    171. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by arose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I assume that when they say "challenging the student's fixed beliefs", they also mean something else entirely instead of insinuating that challenging beliefs is somehow fundamentally wrong?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    172. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Still bitchin' about that White Box Linux going south there Jimmy?

      Because there ARE absolutes.

      Wrong answer. You cannot prove them, you cannot logically demonstrate them. Full stop. The rest of your rant is pure shit.

      We know murder is wrong. Co-existence with any person or group that fails to agree on that point is not possible so we are forced to accept it as a pre condition in any moral code involving multiple people. Note I said murder, look it up before you open yer trap and say something stupid.

      I grow tired of reading this sort of righty-mackeral snappin' Catholic induced horse shit.
      The onus is on you. Prove away.

    173. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2

      Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Since when does the American left advocate murder? Or are you just hoping that if you dance around words long enough people won't notice how full of shit you are?

    174. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how illiteracy inability to do basic math are much more common in Texas, Arizona, and Florida than in Massachusetts and New York, then, hmm?

       

      But, then, drawing the obvious conclusion there might be beyond your critical thinking skills.

    175. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specifically, opposing a "program" called "Higher Order Thinking Skills" abbreviated as "HOTS" is not the same as "opposing higher order thinking skills".

      Demonstrate, or shut your fucking hole.

    176. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a few businesses could stand to be run "like an efficient business", this tells me that they haven't quite pinned that one down (a surviving business is not at all the same thing). Could OBE be back ported to business?

    177. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I largely agree with you, but I find it weird that you (and a huge percentage of people debating this stuff currently) think that the sole possible valuable education needed to fix this is scientific.

      Right now, one of our biggest lacks in the adult population is the ability to analyse words for meaning. Which you don't learn from the sciences - you learn it from literature, debate, philosophy, and to a lesser extent from other soft subjects such as history and social sciences.

      This is not to say that science isn't valuable, or that it isn't important to push science education - just that the problems resulting in people behaving this way are much more solidly rooted in people's inability to comprehend media well enough to distinguish sane from batshiit, manipulative from informative, etc, etc.

    178. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by retchdog · · Score: 1

      i meant codify in the dreary sense of modern "education": establish a rubric by which an overworked burned-out public servant or low-level corporate employee can, within a minute or two, consistently assign a letter grade to a student's performance.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    179. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on the soda ban, but universal health care isn't a loss of freedom, but a trade. The insurance companies are less free, but you are more free to choose an employer or work for yourself without facing the possibility of being permenantly screwed by a 'prexisting condition'.

    180. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yessih, you tell 'em!

      Tennered elite in ivory towers damn right! Callin' me an my buddy Cletus morons for fixed believing the Earth is 6,000 years old. Cuz last year it was 6,000 too. What's happenin' is that the Good LORD makes the Earth one year younger for every year that passes, so it always stays at 6,000 years old. That enough of the critical thinkin' for ye? Makes perfect sense don'it?!

      The Great State of Texas don't need no critical thinkin'. We just say what we fixed believe and when challenged we'll just shout it a little louder!

    181. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by arose · · Score: 1

      Gather a dozen Libertarians and try to get them to agree on anything of substance.

      Gather a dozen academics and try to get them to agree on anything on the cutting edge.

      Personally I believe (and admit it is just an irrational emotional belief) that the future does lie in that direction, we just need another couple of great thinkers to solve some of the gaps in the theory.

      The axiomatic approach is where the problems come in the first place, it's not a theory. The insanity you observe comes from trying to derive a system for governing a highly complex system from a few simple rules.

      That more liberty is better than less.

      We'd have to agree what liberty means first. Trying to pin that down when more than one person is involved is not trivial (a single body problem is easy, the ability to do whatever you want).

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    182. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by dadioflex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The penny dropped for me while reading your post and I suddenly understood what CajunArson was trying to say - and he makes a fair point that the summary makes it look like Texas Republicans are objecting to children being taught to think when really, in his opinion, they're opposing the indoctrination of children. Now, had CajunArson said he was "in favour of teaching children to think, BUT that's not what was being proposed, this was..." then he would have established himself as pro-thinking, instead of anti-HOTS. And for someone for whom the use of language is important, he might try to make his point more clearly without resorting to bullying attacks on people who disagree with him - the use of words which I'm sure he is perfectly able to justify to himself. Which is ironic.

    183. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Any more strawmen to burn, little troll? I know, anything that challenges your bigotry, your hatred, your sense of entitlement because you are white and male is "radical" and "progressive". You guys need to be labeled clearly as what you are: enemies of democracy.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    184. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      And those absolutes are of course set by you and your ilk.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    185. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You gotta love how he advocates outright destruction of half of the political spectrum in his sig and accuses the other side of advocating murder. It's bigots, hatemongers and idiots all the way down with these guys.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    186. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately, the gop rejects science pretty much as an axiom

      Sorry, but this is simply not so. I'm an old guy and I've never met a GOP member who rejects "science". Nobody in the GOP rejects physics, or chemistry, or any other basic science. What I HAVE met are some GOP members who reject certain politically-driven and highly-subjective bits of stuff tied to science (like AGW) ... but that happens on the left too. Many on the left (in the eco-wing) reject "science" and technology (Genetically-modified foods, nuclear power, animals used in testing, etc) and while some on the right reject fossil evidence (much of which they will point out is gathered by one family of atheists) for human evolution, some on the left reject archeological evidence related to kennowick man because that conflicts with their politically-favored "native Americans" claims/beliefs

      Whether you are "pro-science" or "anti-science" in the modern world is unfortunately more a matter of subjective political rhetoric these days than an absolute objective measureable standard... and I am personally suspicious of the claim since it was advanced as a political tactic by the DNC during the middle of the Bush years when they were looking to wedge issues to use in the 2004 race.

    187. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Jiro · · Score: 2

      It should be quite clear that they are not really opposing critical thinking. In context, they are talking about specific "critical thinking" programs. Spinning this as "Republicans hate critical thinking" is like claiming someone who opposes the Patriot Act is unpatriotic.

    188. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      If you actually knew anything about history instead of regurgitating the current right wing propaganda, you knew that the Nazis had a partly socialist platform in the 20s but purged it completely in the early 30s. But go ahead, redefine some more language so it suits your delusions. You know, war is peace and so on...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    189. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by icebraining · · Score: 1

      We know murder is wrong. Co-existence with any person or group that fails to agree on that point is not possible so we are forced to accept it as a pre condition in any moral code involving multiple people.

      That's just plain ignorant. There were societies where murder under certain conditions was not only OK, as it was considered good (like when a family member dishonored his or her family). You can even live with people that believe that indiscriminate murder is OK, as long as you impose penalties that impose a too great a cost on murder - that's why we have laws.

      Of course, if everyone was indiscriminatingly murdering people life would be impossible, but then again if everyone chose to be a software developer like me we'd die for lack of food and other basic necessities, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong for being one.

      From that we can conclude that liberalism/progressivism/socialism/whatever it calls itself today is also wrong since it is based on declaring envy a virtue and murder goes hand in hand with it.

      I'll refer to George Carlin:

      George Carlin: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. This one is just plain fucking stupid.

      George Carlin: Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going. Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful", you wanna get one, too! Coveting creates jobs, leave it alone.

      And of course, coveting is envy.

    190. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      See, this exemplifies the sort of beliefs the GOP does not want to be challenged by teaching critical thinking.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    191. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Pray tell.. where did all the thinkers come from then?

      Berkeley, Stanford, Princeton, Cornell, MIT, etc... ?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    192. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's try to stay with reality please...

      The generations of "mindless zombies" you fear and who you probably think have "closed minds" won a world war, put a man on the moon, built the modern transportation and communication systems we all depend on, invented semiconductors and computers, etc.

      The "open-minded" creative liberal hipster types give us internet-bubble after internet-bubble of companies with no physical products mostly funded by competition for advertising dollars tied to snooping for, and trading on, end-user personal information. Oh, and occasionally a slightly newer version of some physical product created by the mindless zombie generations...

    193. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by NorQue · · Score: 1

      READ MY FUCKING POST YOU BRAINWASHED MORON.

      Way to drive home your point. So, what exactly is it in the Wikipedia article to Higher order thinking skills that makes you think it's "a policy of teaching children to have a pavlovian "yessum massa!" response to politically correct buzzwords"? Not obvious to me. I think you're a Troll.

    194. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      The translation of "intolerant monoculture" is "WAAH they won't tolerate my bigotry. I am so oppressed!"

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    195. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by bmo · · Score: 1

      How you got modded up informative is beyond me.

      You failed to take the whole sentence and evaluate it for intent.

      Teaching critical thinking challenges the kids to think about what other people tell them. Oh wait, "other people" also includes parents. And that's what it says right there at the end. They're deathly afraid that kids might challenge the bullshit their parents may be feeding them, and by extension, those in authority.

      The opposition to critical thinking is not about teaching kids to be smart, it's about teaching them to be obedient at all costs. They are sacrificing thirst for knowledge for obedience. They really don't give a shit about teaching children reading comprehension, math, art, science. They want little thoughtless drones out of the public schools. The private schools will teach the critical thinking to the ruling class kids, like they always have.

      It is nothing short of which we accuse the Islamist states of doing to their children.

      I have you friended, because at one time I thought you were smart. Indeed, I believe you were one of the first I friended. So much for that.

      >lefty trolls

      Yeah, well, whatever.

      --
      BMO

    196. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is so much essence of civilization in these questions. On one hand you want to have some continuity in belief systems because they are an anchor for civilizations. If you completely throw them out and start over every generation it will be chaos.

      These days the essence of civilization is codified into laws through elected representatives which have the obligation of articulating the values of their constituency into the integrated whole which is independent of belief systems and continually balances the common good with that of the individual. (the blue glasses are on)

      I personally wrankle at the concept that this party platform seems to advocate locking children in to the belief system of their parents until they are 18. You ever wonder why kids tend to veer hard left when the hit college. Its because they are compensating for being locked in to the usually conservative belief systems of their aging parents, along with churches they were compelled to attend, and schools many of which are idealogically suffocating due to the often conservative tendencies of state and local school boards.

      The classic process of thesis-antithesis in action. The Amish rumspringa is an example of codifying the reality of youth into the fabric of space^H^H^H^H^H society. College is the rumspringa for the other communities.
        In my country, the allowed age for changing religions, or giving up of one is 18. Before that the laws relating to child protection and criminal behavior are used for the cases of abuse in a religious community. The teachers of religion in schools are not allowed to express their views in one way or the other. Debating issues is fine in class but test questions will still have to be answered as taught.
        This system have produced the A/B dichotomy of adults in a sense, but the divide has been based more strongly on the ideology of the traditional political parties. Only recently, perhaps during the last 20 to 30 years, the "conservative" American view points have migrated to the public life of my European state as well via television and missionary work by the US missionaries. They have mixed up with the traditional and local conservative and right wing policies and a stirred public debate on many issues not talked about openly before. Extreme viewpoints tend to create their own counter points almost invariably.

    197. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by retchdog · · Score: 1

      i agree to an extent.

      however, quite often people who want people to "analyze words for meaning" already have the "right" meaning in mind and are looking for acquiescence to their meaning. science is an impartial training for criticality which, yes, will help with everything else. of course i don't think that only science should be taught. (i'm basically parrotting chomsky here, but hey, he's right about this.)

      frankly, there isn't much sanity left in the media at all; i've concluded that to draw any information from it at all, one must ask questions like "why is this being shown at this moment?"

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    198. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by retchdog · · Score: 1

      as i said above, young earth creationism is irreconcilable with geology; cosmology; and biology. many republicans also have a problem with relativity, presumably because it has "relative" in the name. many of your examples are mostly about ethics and technology (on which, yes, each side makes ideological errors), not outright denial of entire branches of science.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    199. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Zixia · · Score: 1

      Racism is not the origin of that term. Calling a spade a spade, instead of an earth moving tool, is just pointing out that you are plain-speaking.

    200. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ppanon · · Score: 1

      You may want to consider the possibility that the sig is sarcasm and in fact critical of people who embody that approach in their posts.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    201. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives are great at doublethink too. Ie, opponents are socialists, or unpatriotic, or not real americans.

    202. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >Nazi - National Socialist.

      That name was never actually accurate. The Nazi's were only socialist in the same way that the People's Republic of China is a Republic.

      >Socialism is the political ideology that wants to manage everything for the "good" of society.

      False. There are many forms of socialism, ranging from totalitarian forms to anarchist forms of and various in between. I define my own views as libertarian socialist (which is one step to the right of anarchist socialist). There are anarchist forms of communism as well (and communism != socialism). The best way to define socialism is to look at what these things have in common and there is only one single attribute they all share: the belief that the profit of productive labour must be owned by the performers of that labour.

      Capitalism puts ownership in the hands of those who invest in labour, socialism puts it in the hands of those who DO the labour. That's the only true definition. Various forms have had different levels of success in actually achieving this aim (logical as they took radically different approaches to it), but that aim is the definition of socialism.
      To give an example the Spanish anarchists gave ownership of factories to the workers, told them they owned the profits but tried to convince them not to maximize those profits. That was a complete disaster. Most socialist libertarians would also have corporations replaced by worker-owned and democratically managed cooperations or mutualisms, but would WANT those cooperations to compete with each other in a free market for profit, getting the advantages of a free market without the disadvantages of capitalism.

      Facism on the other hand is really just another name for corporatism. It's crony-capitalism (the kind right libertarians also oppose). The combination of state and capitalist power. Which really means that as the ultimate state-capitalism the USSR was much more fascist than communist.

      >Such as removing Jews and other undesirables from society, for its own "good".

      Utterly false. The economic philosophies of various brands of socialism are unrelated to and can exist independently of political or ideological positions such as racism. Removing the Jews was based on outright racism, of a very specific variety: create a common enemy and blame them for all the ills in your country. This gets you popular with your population, then turn them on that "enemy". The Nazis just ended up taking a very old strategy a bit further than most. The best modern-day equivalent would be how the republican party entertains the religious right's fear of gay-rights and promises to help fight the "great pink conspiracy".
      The greatest irony of all is that the things Hitler accused the Jewish culture off was really not true at all of the Jews in Germany. The rich Jewish banking families Hitler rallied against were all Sephardic Jews - who lived in the Latin countries (primarily Spain). The Jews of Germany were Askanasi, not Sephardis and unlike their distant cousins had been languishing in poverty for centuries before Hitler showed up. Rich elites wanting to control the world ? They were slum-living poor people !
      But of course Hitler knew all too well that most Germans didn't know the difference between Sephardic and Askanasi.

      >Look up the wiki page on Nazi-ism, and you'll note that they had "anti-Capitalist" tendencies - that's because they were a socialist ideology.

      Anti-capitalism doesn't equal socialism. There are thousands of economic philosophies and only one of them is called "capitalism" supporting ANY of the others is anti-capitalism but the majority of those others aren't socialist in the LEAST. In fact, even among the philosophies that CALL themselves socialist only a handful actually ARE socialist.

      >They also opposed Communism, but that's because they were National socialists, as opposed to international socialists.

      Communism != Socialism, they are related but not identical and the differences are important.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    203. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Nope. Put down your cleansed history book and go hit archives of period popular publications. American Progressives, European Fascists and Russian Communists were birds of a feather.

      Really? Ever heard of the Spanish Civil War?

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    204. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think that doing a good job of teaching science is the almost the only way to get to real critical thinking.

      Aargh, please stop praising science like it's the supreme goddess of all academic disciplines. Most scientists are little better than anyone else at actual critical thinking, because critical thinking is primarily taught in philosophy departments, and philosophy is considered "arts", rather than "science" these days, and thus disparaged because science is the supreme fucking goddess of all academic disciplines. This focus on "science" as equivalent to critical thinking gives us prats like Richard Dawkins, who considers himself supremely rational, while showing little evidence that he's capable of anything but extended ad hominem ranting. The whole basis of his self-congratulation seems to rest on his rejection of all things supernatural -- a stance which evidently represents the epitome of rationality in his mind. Sorry, Richard, but reason has almost everything to do with logic, and almost nothing to do with matters of metaphysical ontology, so you're not as rational as you think you are, and you don't really know what the word means in any case.

      Science does not teach critical thinking. Performing science does not even promote critical thinking. Most science -- like most other disciplines -- is performed by learned techniques. You are told what to observe, what to measure, how to interpret your results, and so on. There is nothing "critical" about this. At best, it promotes an appreciation for data, or "evidence", but even that has a down-side, because the process often degenerates into a dogmatic argument as to the proper interpretation of the evidence (see "anthropogenic climate change").

      The proper way to teach critical thinking is to fucking well teach critical thinking as its own subject. Students should have an understanding of basic critical thinking concepts like modus ponens, modus tollens, formal and informal logical fallacies, dilemmas, and so on. Unfortunately, as I've said, this is the usual domain of philosophy, and they don't teach philosophy in schools any more. In fact, you can go all the way to PhD these days without ever encountering any kind of formal training in critical thinking. People generally don't even know what critical thinking is -- like Richard Dawkins, they just assume that "science" is it.

      All this call for increased training in critical thinking is a good thing in principle, but when people are so far out of touch with the concept that they think "science" is critical thinking, we're pretty much beyond hope. What you get from that is not critical thinking, but scientism, and God knows we don't need more of that.

    205. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They tried that, but turns out they have a thing for tweeting pictures of their junk.

    206. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by BadgerRush · · Score: 1

      Well written post, but you forgot to address (or didn't understand) the argument you are replying to. No one (not even the Republicans in the article) is against higher order thinking skills (as you defined by the articles you cited), what they are against are “Higher Order Thinking Skills”: a set of misguided, unproven and infective educational policies beginning in the 70s that does not teach higher order thinking skills nor the basic curriculum.

      To quote one Anonymous Bastard:

      What he's saying is that "Higher Order Thinking Skills" (note the capital letters and cute initialism) are not actually higher order thinking skills, much like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is neither democratic nor a republic.

    207. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by makomk · · Score: 2

      he doesn't mean that "higher order thinking skills" are bullshit.. he said that the terms "higher order thinking skills" "logic" "critical thinking" and others have been coopted by the left as compliance with their ideology

      Judging from the Texas GOP's stated reasons for opposing "critical thinking" in schools, I suspect that the evil left-wing ideology here is not how it's taught but the idea of teaching kids to think for themselves at all rather than just letting their parents dictate their beliefs to them.

    208. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's neat! All these deep educational insights must be why American students' test scores are just *skyrocketing*, completely validating this literature!

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    209. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... easy to understand word like rapist ...

      In my state, rape is defined as sexual assault with a penis (thereby making women impossible of rape). And sexual assault is defined as unwelcome penetration of the vagina. I don't know how the molesting of other sexual organs is defined. Although I think urinating in public is defined as indecent behaviour rather a sex-act crime.

    210. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... believe whatever Christian and conservative doctrine they're told ...

      The old testament teaches bigotry and extermination. Yet most Christian countries are moderately tolerant of other religions.

      The quoran teaches co-operation and violence. Yet most Islamic countries are fundamentally intolerant. The Christian crusades and continuing Western imperialism are blamed for this deviation from their religious teachings. By believing Christian teachings, moslems could justify any jihad directly by scripture from the old testament.

    211. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Obama represents that tradition; he comes from the ivory tower culture, he thinks of the rural whites as "clinging to their guns and religion, and he brooks no disagreement."

      The politically incorrect truth is that they do. Just read the comments on this conservative blog about the recent Supreme Court ruling. This is what the base of the right has become, a bunch of nutbag tea partiers and Christian freaks.

    212. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      And the Moral Majority was both of those things and the Holy Roman Empire all three.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    213. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      If this paragraph, which by your admission is an authentic quote, does not fill you with deep revulsion, then you are insane. Challenging fixed beliefs is the only purpose of general education; everything else is as useful as memorizing Wikipedia.

    214. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I'm trying to figure out how being valued for your knowledge and wisdom became a bad thing ..

      Firstly, censorship: Can't have the unwashed masses knowing their rights, making their own gunpowder, or proving global warming is man-made. Knowledge is power and the elite do not want their superiority and power threatened. Look at separation of Church and State in the 1800's.

      Secondly, elitism: In some ways, elitism has changed from an aristocracy to a meritocracy. Anyone who protects and enhances the status-quo becomes superior to the rest. Now in hard science, it is easier to oppose the establishment and be rewarded. Look at how quickly the super-continent and meteor impact theories changed paleontology. Or the theory of relativity and Rutherford atom changed physics. Unfortunately soft sciences are still arguing over principles espoused 70 years ago.

      Thirdly, specialization: The rise of dedicated experts has led to the development of technology and mega-civilisations. It is strange that crews of fictional star-ships have an advanced education in engineering/medicine, physics and computer science. In real-life, specialization means it is difficult to partake of the technical processes that support the mega-civilisations and realise what flaws exist. This is most obvious in enacting laws, which tend to be written by the very people who are unwilling to be accountable.

    215. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We KNOW what is going to happen if you let a bunch of lefty trolls loose indoctrinating K-12 kids on 'critical thinking' because we have seen it already in the colleges. Nowhere else do you find such an intolerant monoculture as the tenured elite in their ivory towers."

      And there is nothing elitist or exclusionary about you. You are clearly open-minded and welcoming of any and all opinions. Right on.

    216. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have read. It has nothign to do with "higher order thingking skills"; it's opposing something which is labeled "Higher Ordered Thinking Skills" but is nothing close to waht we think it is.

    217. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      You have to give Slashdot one thing. Compared to places like Huffington Post, et.al, people here will sometimes be swayed by others.

      Of course both are in a class above DailyKOS or Demunderground or FreeRepublic where you have to pass an ongoing loyalty test. No dissent allowed there.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    218. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > As usual Slashdot puts up any and all propaganda that makes anyone but radical leftists look like lunatics.

      You mean like the newsletters of the organizations that make up the current core constituencies of the Republican party. The summary of this article is no great suprise to anyone that has ever been subjected to the sort of evangelicals that seem to be in control of the GOP these days.

      If anything, this article should be criticized not for being mindless propaganda but for being old news. It's more like ancient history.

      These kinds of policy statements from the GOP should be no surprise to anyone.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    219. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > i'm a liberal and i agree with your point. it's just impossible to codify "critical thinking,"

      I am sure there is some Greek or Roman principle you could steal whole cloth and use unmodified. This isn't exactly a new problem we're talking about. Chances are that it's already been solved several times already.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    220. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      You haven't been paying attention for the last 3.5 years, have you?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    221. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      According to the CBC it doesn't matter what you are thinking when you use words. If they say they are racist, then you are a racist.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    222. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by shilly · · Score: 1

      Excellent to have you explain to us that we know "murder is wrong". Now, for round two, it would be amusing to see you try to define murder in a way that is objectively testable. I presume a redblooded rightwinger isn't going to equate murder with deliberate killing. So please explain how the boundary operates and explain how this boundary is clearly stable and "objective".

    223. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by shilly · · Score: 1

      You don't have to codify "critical thinking" or any other higher-order thinking skill like problem-solving in a once-and-for-all way. You just have to teach the techniques of one or other system so that people have useful tools to hand. For example, for problem-solving:
      - define the problem
      - structure it into subcomponents, using appropriate logic
      - develop potential answers for each subcomponent
      - test and refine answers
      - put it all together

      Plenty of other methods work too, but that one is pretty effective for most people, most of the time

    224. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian belief requires critical thinking, else it's blind obedience. Since the latter prevents the former, ask yourself what is the real agenda behind these operations.

      Christians, Don't forget Mt 10:14 and all the parallel teaching: PROPOSE the word of God, if they don't LISTEN/WELCOME you, they are doomed, shake off the dust of your sandals and go on to somebody else.

      It doesn't say indoctrinate.
      It doesn't say they are doomed if they don't BELIEVE you. IT says if they don't LISTEN: quite a difference.

      I am not denying what is written elsewhere, for Christians the truth the way and the life is Christ. But don't try dictating Him what are the parameters for saving or not saving anybody, and beware anybody who thinks he knows.

    225. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the right is much more guilty of that than the left is. If you look at the GOP party platform it's not something you're likely to fall for if you have any critical thinking skills. At this point they're outright promising to turn the federal government into a disaster. It doesn't take a genius to see that they can then keep running on an anti-government platform perpetually as they can keep the government perpetually dysfunctional.

      Or how about being pro-life and anti-welfare at the same time. Love the fetus hate the child isn't something that somebody with any critical thinking skills at all is going to fall for and yet people fall for it all thetime.

    226. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by shilly · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if you'd learned some higher order thinking skills yourself, you'd be able to spot the multiple flaws in your implicit assertion that the existence of a literature describing the nature of higher order thinking skills will not necessarily mean that US students' test scores will be skyrocketing. You might, for example, learn to question the chain of causality you have implicitly created.

    227. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I disagree, I think we're giving him too much credit. I grew up in Texas and I can assure you that they do view, for instance, teaching children how to spot logical fallacies as an attack on Christianity. The issue here is very much whether empiricism and rationalism are legitimate philosophies or not. I've heard liberals be attacked on similar grounds as to what CajunArson was saying. It almost always boiled down to an argument against empiricism and rationalism and a suggestion that valuing such philosophies was liberal agenda.

      There are also, because I was taught to think critically, several fallacies in CajunArson's post. There is a liberal use of ad hominen, the hint of straw man, tempus e locus peculiaris, red herring, and an appeal to common sense.

      All in all, I see very little substance in his post other than "critical thinking" is a term used to describe something negative that we wouldn't want our children to learn that is different than what Slashdotters think of as "critical thinking". If we're liberal, we're thinking exactly what we think "critical thinking" is. So we must be ignorant republicans who would otherwise have good sense if it was only pointed out to us what evil was masquerading as critical thinking in the eyes of liberals. Otherwise, we agree on definition and want critical thinking taught. Or, maybe he allows for the fact that we're ignorant centrists or independents. Either way, there was no attempt at describing what these ineffective teaching techniques were and why liberals are attached to them. There was also a heavy implication of intent, and no discussion of how he came to understand that the intent exists.

    228. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know if the GOP would play ball and contribute to legislation the Democrats wouldn't have had to force it through reconciliation. Hell, had the GOP allowed an up or down vote on their own ideas it wouldn't have gotten to that point.

      But, then again, let's blame the Democrats because it's not like the GOP is populated by self serving jackasses that would rather have America fail than allow the opposition to retain control of the White house.

    229. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead they should have pavlovian "yessum massa" responses to the unsupported beliefs of their parents.

    230. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I suppose you could read it as

      We oppose the teaching of (Higher Order Thinking Skills , critical thinking skills and similar programs) (that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education )

      Which would say that HOTS, critical thinking and similar programs are all a relabelling of OBE. Or

      We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills , critical thinking skills and (similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education )

      Which would say they oppose HOTS, critical thinking and also similar programs that are simply renamed OBE.

      There's not really much difference in those readings, either HOTS is OBE, or it is similar to programs that are just OBE.

      I don't really see a reading there that would imply they only oppose some versions of HOTS and critical thinking

    231. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by value_added · · Score: 1

      I've just finished reading the book in its entirety and highly recommend others interested in the subject read it also.

      My thanks for pointing it out.

    232. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a parent with children in public education that is currently run using an OBE system (read End of Grade tests dictated by the federal government, created by people not responsible for the outcomes), I see teachers do nothing but teach to the test. There is not a single critical thought or allowance to vary from what the test expects you to regurgitate at the end of the year. So, I see OBE as preventing critical thought, because if the teacher allows the student to have an idea that doesn't match with what the test expects the answer to be, that teacher gets whacked in the head with test scores. MHO

    233. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      As usual Slashdot puts up any and all propaganda that makes anyone but radical leftists look like lunatics.

      Umm..no. The Big Fat Idiot calls anyone but a lunatic a "radical leftist."

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    234. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want the kiddies questioning the wisdom of having elected judges, of the executive and legislative branch interfering in the judicial, of promoting one religion over another, limiting free speech, of supporting traitors, of defunding early childhood education, and so on.

    235. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ultranova · · Score: 1

      As usual Slashdot puts up any and all propaganda that makes anyone but radical leftists look like lunatics.

      Nope, that would be the GOPs own platform, which the grandparent quoted. I'll emphasize the parts quoted in the summary: "Knowledge-Based Education â" We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the studentâ(TM)s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      And here's the Slashdot summary which you claim misrepresents it: "Alarmingly, they openly state that they oppose schools teaching critical thinking, on the grounds that it may challenge 'student's fixed beliefs' and undermine 'parental authority.'"

      If simply quoting a politician makes them look like a lunatic, that's their fault, not a conspiracy.

      Now all of the sudden anyone who opposes the twisted and mangled brainwashing that is labeled "logic" or "critical thinking" is instantly a right-wing extremist Nazi who needs to be "volunteered" for a good liberal "reeducation sensitivity training course".

      And here you're doing a pretty good job of making yourself look like a lunatic, again without any help from the "radical leftists" or anyone else.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    236. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by dgreer · · Score: 1

      Uh, not to hijack this thread, but simply to answer spiffmastercow's question, if somebody believes life begins at conception, then the left's advocating for abortion rights IS advocating for murder.

      Not arguing either way, just pointing out the "critical thought" that you missed completely.

      --
      "I don't think software should necessarily be free ... but if you pay for it, it should work!" - me
    237. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by dgreer · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are set by traditional western moral and ethical philosophy, as he clearly stated.

      Ilk? Really?

      --
      "I don't think software should necessarily be free ... but if you pay for it, it should work!" - me
    238. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by zarthrag · · Score: 1

      Only if the baby provokes them.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    239. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try understanding your own links. "Cool" was referring to a very specific use of the word against a very specific person.

    240. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      The liberals did take a good page out of 1984 by learning how to warp and manipulate language to fit their own agenda. For example, relabel the same old provably ineffective (or intentionally worse than ineffective) teaching techniques as "logic" or "critical thinking".

      You're right, but the whole "against critical thinking" part isn't what outraged me. It's their own wording as to the reasons why they oppose those classes that do. They oppose classes which may change a student's "fixed beliefs" and "undermine parental authority."

      By their own admission, what they are against is the proper definition of critical thinking. Forget the class and programs. Critical thinking is about putting aside your "fixed beliefs", challenging them, and dropping those beliefs when the evidence calls for it. It's about making your own decisions based on evidence and logic, not based on authority (which would be a logical fallacy), parental or otherwise. I don't give a shit if they're actually against the educational program, it's entirely possible it's ineffective at teaching critical thinking. The reasons they gave for their opposition should be enough to ensure such people never get elected.

    241. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a parent with children in the public education system, OBE equates to End of Grade testing, which in turn generates a culture of "teach to the test". The test is mandated by the federal government, and designed by people with no responsibility within the education system. Then, if the students don't regurgitate exactly what they are expected to say from what they are taught, the teachers are whacked over the head with test scores. Where is the critical thinking in that? If the student has a thought different than what is presented, everyone is punished for it.

      Advocates of EOGs say "it is just one test." but it's not. Everything all school year long isdriven by the one goal of better EOG test scores. It has ruined education, IMHO. Teachers can't teach anything but what the EOG test expects to see.

      Look up "Fuzzy Math" or "Math Wars" in Wikipedia, this disaster is because multiplication tables aren't learned, because the straight ability to multiply isn't on the EOGs If the student can add 7 5 times, he can get the right answer, so no need for those pesky multiplication tables. This results in teaching children to "guess at" the division because they don't know multiplication.

      If this is the result of OBE, then I'm all for getting rid of it!

    242. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by dgreer · · Score: 1

      To answer your questions:

      Because "wind" power is more than twice the cost of coal or nuclear generated power, and at today's prices, close to (or maybe over - haven't looked in a while) 3 times the cost of nat-gas generation. Also, the windmills, while technically "neat" (hey, I'm a geek, and I do give points where they are due) are an eyesore to people who love the land, are a hazard to birds and aircraft alike, and break down so often, it's unlikely they will ever achieve economic break-even. If you doubt that analysis, then just ask this one question: Why did T. Boone, after spending $2 Billion on windmills, fire sale them when the carbon exchange thing crashed? Any technology which requires government subsidy to break even is, but definition, immature and as engineers we should understand that.

      Second question, it depends on what you are "progressing" toward. If it's individual freedom, then I'd say nothing's wrong with it. If it's totalitarianism (or despotism), then not so much. Of course, that's "relativist" thinking.

      --
      "I don't think software should necessarily be free ... but if you pay for it, it should work!" - me
    243. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Then you will be held back one year.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    244. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Try to understand..."Cool" has been declared a racists word, regardless of the circumstances.

      Try using the phrases "calling a spade a spade" in any context related to Obama or any other nationally recognized individual of color. You'd find yourself being compared to the KKK, Jim Crow laws and probably White Supremacists to boot.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    245. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Clearly, the comma denotes an enumerated list..."Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar". Three categories.

      "that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning)" is the conditional portion. Any of the three categories are opposed if they meet this condition.

      Really, it's so easy a caveman could do it.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    246. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by stigmerger · · Score: 1

      I see what you mean. For example, when the Texas GOP platform supports "protection from extreme environmentalists" they just mean the liberal so-called "consensus" wackos that want to "purposefully" disrupt the oil and gas industry with their crazy global warming claptrap, when you and I can easily tune into Fox news and discover that there is no warming, and, besides, people couldn't have caused it.

      When they oppose federal ID, but demand the ability to disenfranchise convicted felons, supported by requiring voter identification, they just mean the commonsense local measures that prevent undesirables from soiling our elections, things like having uniformed officers loitering at polling places to make sure you don't try to vote without whatever ID they have lawfully decided you should have. Undesirables could easily get a fake national ID, obviously.

      Even more obviously, you can't require religious organizations to violate their own principles just because they are providing a public service to the general public. That's why the GOP demands the right to have public displays of the decalogue in public places, and "in god we trust" protected, so that everyone can know what religious people believe. They add a few details about what God believes, in case you didn't already know that. It's just common sense, really. But for you critical thinkers out there, it's easy to follow-up by checking your bible. That's why the GOP supports praying in school. How else would you learn about stuff like that?

      Naturally you don't want judicial activists destroying the concept marriage for healthy people everywhere.

      When it comes to the education of children, though, we need to understand what really works. For example, "corporal punishment is effective". Just ask a scientist (not a liberal whackjob scientist, though). This might be part of what was confusing people: "We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced." For example, if some leftist scientist has a "theory" that the earth is older than 8000 years, you shouldn't be spanked for asking him why the bible doesn't say that. If he's so smart, why can't he handle that new data? Huh? I heard it was actually getting colder. Volcanos spit out more soot than any coal plant. Water vapor is actually more of a greenhouse gas than CO2, and, anyhow, 95% of the CO2 is natural. If he's doesn't just have an agenda to destroy the oil and gas industry, and put people out of work, the scientist ought to care about these important facts, and go back and rework his theories. (And are you telling me that if you shake a box full of parts you can suddenly construct a functioning wristwatch? It's obviously absurd. So much for "theories".)

      Speaking of theories, it's obvious that when the economy tanks, you have to tighten the belt. You can tell whether someone is capable of critical thinking by whether they can see this. Like liberals aren't. Some of them think you inject money into the economy, but that's just driving up debt. Ask any billionaire. They didn't get where they are by going into debt. Or by condoning a bunch of frivolous class action lawsuits. Those just hurt the economy, as the GOP points out.

      Sorry, I got a little long-winded. Just wanted to help you folks understand how reasonable the GOP position really is. Not like you'd think if you just read the headlines in alarmist liberal rags.

    247. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Most of the 'deadly sins' are wrong for reasons which should be deducable from similar basic axioms of morality by anyone willing to expend the effort. From that we can conclude that liberalism/progressivism/socialism/whatever it calls itself today is also wrong since it is based on declaring envy a virtue and murder goes hand in hand with it.

      Socialism isn't based on declaring envy a virtue, it's based on a desire for liberation from economic oppression - it's selling point is "you have nothing to lose but your chains", not "kill the rich". Capitalism, on the other hand, does explicitly declare greed a virtue. Which, of course, was what caused said oppression and the birth of socialism in the first place. And now the right wing is desperately trying to convince the serfs to labour for the lords for table scraps in the hopes of one day becoming a lord living off of serf's labours themselves, rather than improving the position of the serfs, such as how much of the fruits of their labour they should get to keep.

      Still, the Republicans making a big deal of sin when the entire party is made of sodomites does make for good but very dark comedy.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    248. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      Use your own critical thinking skills and reading comprehension, and read the full sentence.

      "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      The list of opposed curricula is disjointed, "critical thinking skills" is not capitalised, unlike the two other specified subjects, suggesting that the paragraph is talking about critical thinking skills in general, and not a specific methodology of the same name. Taking into consideration the rest of the document, which rails against anything other than loyalty to the Christian faith and and Christian morality, it doesn't take a whole lot of critical thinking to understand that what constitutes "purpose" in an environment expecting total loyalty and faith can be anything that might conceivably challenge religious notions, and nor does it take a scholar in logic to understand that verbiage more broad and vague than what is needed to address a stated desire is of no use to anyone aside from a party with hidden motivations.

      Critical thinking requires an understanding of context.

    249. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by demachina · · Score: 1

      "#7) Referring to a post a post you authored as "the least ideological post I've seen"."

      That wasn't really saying much about the ideology of my post, it was more a comment on the rabid ideological bias of all the other posts on this thread, which if you've read it is pretty undeniable.

      --
      @de_machina
    250. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you could use all the energy you wanted but have zero environmental impact, I'm pretty sure the greens would care less about how much you use.

      But you can't. Energy production has an environmental impact, and the more you use the greater the impact is. So how is your claim relevant, even if it was true?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    251. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite clear that they included "critical thinking skills" in a list of things they oppose. They didn't say they oppose "OBE relabeled as critical thinking skills". Reading that into their statement is wishful thinking. If I were going to read something into their statement, I would say that they hold critical thinking skills in the same esteem as OBE and HOTS - things that "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." Take them at their word - they oppose critical thinking skills because they believe these skills are designed to challenge fixed beliefs and undermine parental authority.

    252. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Nice link.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    253. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Uh, not to hijack this thread, but simply to answer spiffmastercow's question, if somebody believes life begins at conception, then the left's advocating for abortion rights IS advocating for murder.

      Not arguing either way, just pointing out the "critical thought" that you missed completely.

      Oh yeah, I forgot about whole line of reasoning. I was thrown off when he went on "Actual murder, look it up" thing, since I assumed he was going by the actual definition of murder, not the Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" song version.

    254. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a very old argument. The /. summary links to but doesn't actually quote the platform. Allow me:

      "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      Now go hit the 'ol Wikipedia on "Outcome Based Education"

      Stop right there. They said the problem was:

      challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority

      Whether OBE work or not is irrelevant. They are against it because it might challenge their beliefs, not because it may not work. This is stupid and wrong.

    255. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Belief in Santa Claus at 4 and 5 is a "fixed belief""

      I'm not sure you noticed but Santa Claus is mostly about training kids to expect free toys at the end of the calendar year, and compelling their parents to buy them whether they can afford it or not. Its a fairly essential tactic to insure retailers turn a profit by the end of the calendar year. Schools are more likely to reinforce the Santa Claus myth than challenge it. The Santa Claus myth is a basic part of keeping a consumer driven economy functioning now, and the primary purpose of education is to drive economies.

      --
      @de_machina
    256. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The problem is not the insurance, but the actual cost of health services and they way the services are oversold, and prices not transparent. One is not even quoted the prices before incurring them. The economic model for health is broken, not the insurance itself.
      While I would agree with that statement, Obamacare doesn't do anything about the healthcare system. It is just a giant handout to the insurance companies, who are already rich beyond reason.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    257. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      As long as we are putting contextual information back in:

      We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

      In other words, anything that might not mesh with what the kid believed (for whatever reason) when they walked into the classroom they cannot be taught to question. So yes, they are opposing teaching of all critical thinking.

    258. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not all of those kids are actually different. Some of them would probably thrive in Montessori schools learning higher order thinking skills (lower case since using HOTS is apparently trolling). They might go on to found Amazon and Google and become global leaders.

      Some kids will be lucky to manage memorizing crap for 12 years, make it out with a diploma, and find a high paying career in factory work, burger flipping or roughnecking.

      Your comparison is very flawed. Higher order thinking is about challenging the student. For Sergei Brin to figure out a new search algorithm is as much a challenge as figuring out in what order to cut down a corpse of trees is for a lumberjack.

      Teaching higher order thinking should not be for a few lucky ones going to the right elite schools. It should be applied to teaching in general, adjusted to the level of the student. What is a challenge for one could be trivial for someone else.

      As posted by docmordin:

      F. M. Newman ("Higher order thinking in teaching social studies: A rationale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness", Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 22, 41-56, 1990) defined higher- and lower-order thinking, in virtually the same manner as Maier, based upon observations in classrooms and interviews with teachers and department chairs. That is, lower-order thinking demands only routine or mechanical application of previously acquired information, e.g., inserting numbers into established formulas or regurgitating lists of facts. On the other hand, higher-order thinking "challenges the student to interpret, analyze, or manipulate information". Furthermore, he pointed out that since individuals differ in the kinds of problems they find challenging, higher-order thinking is relative: what one person finds challenging another may find elementary; as such, to determine the extent to which the individual is involved in higher-order thinking, one would presumably need to know something about that individual's background.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    259. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Do we have to conceed that students should be allowed to have fixed beliefs which should go unchallenged by educators?

      We should never conceed any such thing. It isn't just educators and students either. As someone who is all of the following, I can tell you that If you aren't constantly questioning your beliefs you will be a crappy engineer, you will be a crappy parent, you will be a crappy Christian, and you will be a crappy member of society.

    260. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it started when folks noticed that such people were teaching kids to question authority and their "fixed beliefs".

    261. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Belief systems are obsolete. Let's start dealing in facts instead.

    262. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      "We oppose...and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      So any made up curriculum that is just relabeled OBE and is primarily for what can only be called re-education in the worst sense of the term, will be opposed. This actually further narrows the opposition to programs in the sense that they need to meet two criteria for being opposed.

      Or, you can just make up whatever meaning you want based on your interpretation of the whole document. Call it Outcome Based Reading Comprehension.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    263. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by docmordin · · Score: 1

      If, in your example, you are talking about the standard Abelian group of reals with respect to addition, and not some arbitrary (commutative) monoid, then yes, I am against teaching fallacious information to someone so that he or she "feels good". I am not, however, against an instructor mentioning that, in abstract algebra, under special circumstances and for certain kinds of sets, 2+2 can equal 5. The reason I am not is that those kinds of statements, at least from my own experiences, engender curiosity: students start to question what they know, how things work, and so forth.

    264. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you replace every instance of "LIBERAL" with "Socialist", a good half of your parody becomes sadly accurate.

      Greatest monsters indeed.

      And if you replace "Socialist" with "Wolf" you'll hear what those of us on the left have been hearing for quite some time. When the Republicans of the 90s are "Socialist" (Obamacare/Romneycare), the word has become noise.

    265. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Put another way, teachers shouldn't substitute their own beliefs for those taught to the children by their parents.

      All this reminds me of arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    266. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the 'deadly sins' are wrong for reasons which should be deducable from similar basic axioms of morality by anyone willing to expend the effort. From that we can conclude that liberalism/progressivism/socialism/whatever it calls itself today is also wrong since it is based on declaring envy a virtue and murder goes hand in hand with it.

      Most of the 'deadly sins' are wrong for reasons which should be deducable from similar basic axioms of morality by anyone willing to expend the effort. From that we can conclude that fascism/conservativism/libertarianism/whatever it calls itself today is also wrong since it is based on declaring greed a virtue and murder goes hand in hand with it.

      Paint not with a broad brush, lest ye be painted.

    267. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure, because there's certainly no shortage of idiot home schooled children that can't even read at grade level (hint, charter schools are full of them) and the poor slobs from regular school never make the dean's list and "kick ass" through pre-med...

      Confirmation bias much?

    268. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      No one is arguing that critical thinking skills should not be taught.

      The argument is about curriculums that are nothing but OBE with a goal of indoctrinating students to a particular viewpoint.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    269. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by locketine · · Score: 1

      The GOP makes far stronger use of those "leftist" tactics you just mentioned but I agree that the left does in fact participate in censorship and propaganda.

      --
      Think globally but act within local variable scope.
    270. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      I already covered this in my post. Why are you replying with this?

    271. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      It was sarcastic... the school in question is Arizona State University, which apparently now has over 72,000 students and is the largest public university in the US by enrollment. I didn't know that. I do know that, since I left (like the year after), they funded a ton of new buildings for computer science and engineering programs. I wish I had those resources when I was there.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    272. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      If the playing field of democracy does not involve consistency in some ways, why even bother to take part and not simply blow evil people's heads off?

      Assuming we take the Hobbesian view that everyone is an animal and out to maximize their own estate and crush everyone that opposes them, then yes. However, people don't actually behave this way.

      People don't respect the life and property of others because it's consistent with the philosophical system of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, they do it because they're decent and civilized.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    273. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      You see there are parts of Texas where wind farming might actually be profitable someday. So of course the greens went right to work finding a mascot to rally around to stop any such notion. Cue the Dune Sagebrush Lizard.

      I think it's pretty fair to look at your environmental impact and determine if you're going to really screw anything up before you launch major projects. It turns out that this particular lizard has the second-smallest range in the US, and is very sensitive to its habitat (it only lives in a combination of shinnery oak shrubs + sand dunes). If you remove the oak, then the lizard goes too. Setting up wind turbines or oil fields is fine, just don't remove the oak, don't screw up the lizard's habitat. There are plenty of places where wind power is feasible (and I've seen a ton of existing turbines all along I-10 through West Texas), there's no reason you need to destroy the only habitat this little guy lives in. This isn't a conservative vs. liberal thing, this is a "don't be a dick" thing.

      Also, it's a little ironic that the "conservative" wants to destroy the wildlife habitat.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    274. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      He was a Democrat in NYC his entire life; right up until he wanted to run for mayor and hit the cold hard reality that as a Jew he had zero chance of winning as a D in that city and suddenly became a Republican.

      I guess the Democratic affiliation of Ed Koch and Abe Beame are just figments of my imagination.

      I didn't ask when he was a Democrat, or a progressive, I asked when he was a liberal.

      If someone wants to hack at Michael Bloomberg for being pro-choice but anti-48 oz., have at it, but the argument's probably not going to impress most New Yorkers.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    275. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in any context related to Obama or any other nationally recognized individual of color

      Sounds like you're referring to a specific set of circumstances.

      And again, you completely failed to understand the article you cited. "Cool" was considered racist in the context of portraying Obama in sunglasses while 70’s-style music filled the background, evoking "Blaxploitation" films of old. That was a very specific context. The CBC did not declare "cool" to be a "racists[sic] word, regardless of the circumstances".

    276. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Its like how they changed "bible in the classroom" into intelligent design, shell shock into post traumatic stress disorder (which still sounds like PMS more than battlefield trauma to me) or how they took an easy to understand word like rapist and replaced it with sex offender which frankly can mean just about any damned thing just depending on the state you are in.

      Don't forget "detainee" and "enhanced interrogation"!

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    277. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Watch the youtube video of a little girl whose jaw was blown-off my U.S. bomb shrapnel, and tell me how that is a "good thing". I'm not seeing it. All I'm seeing it a little girl who will not have a mouth for the rest of her life. (Plus a boy with no arm, and stacks of corpses that were dug-out of the rubble.)

      As for Obamacare: They could have made the insurance companies "less free" by mandating they carry people with preexisting conditions, but not forced individual citizens to buy insurance against their wishes (forced instrastate commerce). They also did not need to outlaw my catastrophic insurance.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    278. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Shagg · · Score: 1

      Can't have the littl'uns questionin' authority or back-talkin' their Momma and Daddy.

      Or, worse yet from their perspective, we can't have a future generation of voters who are able to think for themselves.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    279. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      No, you can't put it that way at all.Critical thinking is about questioning beliefs, not about unthinkingly substituing one set for another. If anything, a student not taught to question is *more* likely to walk around believing every weird idea their teachers have. After all, they are around teachers more than their own parents, and they are authority figures too.

    280. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Watch the youtube video of a little girl whose jaw was blown-off my U.S. bomb shrapnel, and tell me how that is a "good thing". I'm not seeing it.

      Wait, what? When did this become a debate about whether or not it is a "good thing" to use US bombs to blow off little girls jaws, and why am I on the side in favor of this? I am simply asserting that wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya are not the exclusive work of United States Liberals. I'm pretty sure Arabs had a part in that also. I'm also pretty sure that the entire reason we are currently in the Middle East is not exclusively the work of United States Liberals. All of these assertions have nothing to do with whether or not using a US bomb to blow off a little girl's jaw is a "good thing", so I'm really confused why you asked me to try and debate you on that point. Unless you're just one of those people who uses logical fallacies in their "debates".

      As for Obamacare: They could have

      Yeah yeah, coulda woulda shoulda. They could have done a lot of other things, and there would still be a bunch of people butthurt about it. Go ahead though, go ahead and draft a proposal that every single person likes, that no one has a problem with, and that helps society as a whole, in particular the extremely poor and lower-middle classes who need the most help. You go ahead and write up a law that helps poor people which rich people have no problems with.

      They also did not need to outlaw my catastrophic insurance.

      What exactly is your insurance, and which section of the law specifically outlaws it?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    281. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Yes, you already condemned the entire document based on your biased and twisted reading of it.

      You think it's about religion and cast every statement in that context. That's how you "covered it".

      So congratulations, you have mastered reading comprehension (if we use the OBE standard).

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    282. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Which is the point of the this whole cluster fuck of a story. They oppose supposed "critical thinking" that is actually nothing but re-education.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    283. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by sycodon · · Score: 1

      So sunglasses and 70's music is racist also.

      I see.

      Racists behind every tree.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    284. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Ilk. Really. Think about the historical context of his sig and what he advocates with it. Read what he continually posts. He wouldn't recognize ethics if they bit him in the arse. By traditional western values, I gather, you mean the freedom to bash gays, to get them uppity niggers back where they belong and get them goddamn bitches back in the kitchen, yes? Oh and the highest freedom of them all, the freedom to watch the poor starve in the streets, because taxes are theft, right? At least that seems to be his standpoint. If you want to associate yourself with that, feel free.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    285. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by demachina · · Score: 1

      When it comes to nebulous social issues, facts tend to live in the eyes of the beholder, which is why they end up being beliefs and not science. You cant reduce every issue to facts, which is why your assertion probably doesn't fly.

      --
      @de_machina
    286. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would take that under advisement, but judging from your previous posts it would seem that we disagree politically, which means you are TRUE EVIL and I'm not allowed to consider the merits of anything you may say. Nothing personal.

    287. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Last night you said CONGRESS sets these budgets and the President has nothing to do with it, so you just contradicted yourself talking about how Clinton and Bush do these things which, gasp, effect the economy.

      Good catch! Yes, Congress does allocate funds to NASA, but as NASA falls under the executive branch, the President (or his office) requests the funding and sets the mission. I don't know of any cases where funding has been denied, but I'm sure there is some back door wrangling like, "throw in the rocket plant in my district and I'll make sure your pet project gets funding"

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    288. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Murder is 100% wrong? Not when it's in self defense, and not when the state mandates capital punishment. When the state calls it war, then it's ok to kill millions. Some call that mass-murder. Others call it survival or patriotism. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of this, I just meant that people who complain about morality are often the ones that use it as black&white first-causes to justify things beneficial to them or their societal cross-section. Basically, they attempt to make their detractors feel guilty for disagreeing which is fallacious. The left is just as guilty of this as the right, eg: feminism/NAACP/gays and other 'social justice' groups that are/have (or begun to) cross the line between equity and entitlement. The right does it with religion, mainly, but it also shows up in patriotic drumbeating.

      Get your head out of your ass. I'm not a leftist by any means.

    289. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      If you could use all the energy you wanted but have zero environmental impact, I'm pretty sure the greens would care less about how much you use.

      If only. Cheap, clean, abundant energy would be "nothing short of disastrous", unquote, according to Amory Lovins. And back in the 80s when it looked like Pons and Fleishman had actually discovered something, Paul Erlich wrote a "the horror, oh, the horror, this dooms us" type editorial.

      Energy sources are supported by the so-called "green movement" precisely to the extent that they are limited or, better, unavailable. As soon as any energy source they tout beings to show any signs of actually producing energy in significant quantity, some reason will always be found or manufactured to oppose it. Every. Single. Time.

    290. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      and your argument against his is ad hominem fallacy. disagreement does not mean one is a 'hater.' this typical response is the left's counterpart to right wing religious zealotry.

    291. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      . Thus he is proposing instead that students are taught to never question anything told to them, no matter what that might be, or how correct or not it may be, to accept at face value everything they see, and to never make up their own mind on anything.

      That approach has been wildly successful in Texas. Everybody in their political elite thinks that way.

      Your definition of "successful" and mine appear to differ in certain, key, ways.

    292. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > I guess the Democratic affiliation of Ed Koch and Abe Beame are just figments of my imagination.

      No, but the political scene changed after that. Now Democratic politics, internal and external, are almost entirely based on dividing people into tribes by race, gender, etc. and voting along those lines.

      It was actually somewhat suprising when Mark Greene won the primary to run against Bloomy that first time. It had been assumed by 'all knowledgable pundits' that it would be a fight between a black and a hispanic in the runoff. So since all the local experts were wrong (as is so often the case) you could argue that Bloomberg could have actually won as a D. Seems Democratic party politics wasn't quite as race obsessed as the experts thought. But that wasn't they way he bet and he won anyway so it is nothing but an interesting historical footnote. Of course there are other details to consider, by running as an R he didn't have to spend much on the primary and could avoid the pandering to the base required to secure the nomination, making the win in the general a lot simpler since he didn't have to weasel out of those positions.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    293. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      No, in theory communism is not totalitarian. In fact it's the opposite - the workers, rather than the state, have control. In Marx's view, the state would wither away after a transition period. Of course that's the utopian view, the ideology has been hijacked enough times to say with some certainty that the ideal of communism is near impossible to achieve.

      In theory, communism doesn't have to be totalitarian, if you have a group of perfect human beings who are selfless and love to give their all for someone else's benefit.

      Practically, communism is totalitarian because those perfectly angelic humans don't exist, and real human beings will freeload or slack off if they don't get to benefit from their own labor. Then the communist gov't realizes it has to use fear and violence to make the system work.

      What's also important is that the Nazis railed against the notion of the workers, or people, having control. They bemoaned the bureaucracy and ineffectiveness, and posited that a strong, central fascist state was the answer. At that point they weren't even fighting against what communism was to become, they were actually opposed to the ideal.

      "Practical" communism doesn't care for the workers/people having control, either. Every historical example established a dictatorship to "transition" to the ideal communist utopia.

      Both end up becoming totalitarian gov'ts where the individual is oppressed for the "good" of "all".

      Both are socialistic - individuals exists to serve the state, or shall be destroyed as enemies of the state.

    294. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when the Killing Fields were flowing with blood, Joan Baez condemned the Pol Pot regiem, and asked others to join her. Jane Fonda refused, saying it was against her principles to criticize a "Progressive" government. I guess she should know what a "Progressive" is if anyone does.

    295. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      sure.. ideologues do not tolerate questioning of their axioms. That "challenging fixed beliefs" part is clearly a nod to religious belief.

      It could very well be that the GOP would not want such things taught as it prefers societal conformance to a rigid command hierarchy (religion and the state(neo-patriotism)), which contrasts the leftist demands for rigid adherence to group consensus and deference to an assumed benevolent state. While both ideologies start from different points, they diverge towards similar conclusions/solutions in order to get maximum compliance. It's too bad the proponents from both sides miss the fact they're burning the village (liberty,finance,sovereignty et al) in order to save it.

    296. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      When the Republicans of the 90s are "Socialist" (Obamacare/Romneycare), the word has become noise.

      Romney was governor of a liberal state and is a moderate relative to the rest of the Republican party. It is quite possible for Republicans to support socialist policies. I don't care if we label him a socialist or not, but socialist is a good label to put on both Obamacare and Romneycare. (And every aspect of the modern welfare state)

      You'll note that no one is touting MA as an example of US healthcare done right. That's because the socialist principles behind it have doomed it to failure. No matter how good the intentions, if the program borrows from the future to "sustain" itself, it is a failure. Socialist programs unfortunately treat the future as an unending stream of resources to finance every single "good" deed under the sun.

    297. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      you can thank the feminists for that rigid definition.. oh wait, they're expanding the definition every day.. if they could, they'd make male glances considered rape. The people who run the political groups like this (of which feminism is only one) are highly insecure and are willing to sell out their (and our) liberties to the state in order to get the social control they crave.

    298. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      I agree.. right now, both sides are useless. Hell, it's the dynamics created between the parties year after year that will kill this country..

    299. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Not Democratic. See how a name is irrelevant?

      North Korea is an example of a country that deliberately mislabels its own political system. It is not proof that all countries have mislabeled political systems. It does not prove that Nazis misused the label socialist.

      Socialism = "social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy". Nazis were fascist corporatists, not socialists. They controlled the means of production and heavily managed the economy.

      1. Nazis were the governing party and claimed to represent society.

      2. Nazis controlled the means of production and heavily managed the economy.

      3. Socialist gov'ts are distinguished by social ownership/control of the economy.

      4. Nazi's economic policies fulfill the definition of socialism that you yourself provided. Calling them socialists is indeed accurate.

      National socialists as opposed to international socialists? Huh?

      Why do you think Nazis marketed themselves to Germany as National Socialists?

      They were appealing to the people by offering socialist policies that would supposedly serve the people instead of the "fatcats" (evil banker Jews; Jews disproportionately being bankers and capitalist types in Germany at the time).

      The Nazis were distinguishing themselves from those *other* socialists who wanted to create a new caste-less society; Nazis weren't going to dissolve Germany, they were going to create a socialism that would serve Germany but not those icky foreign (ex: Russian) socialists. If you like your German heritage, you can keep your German heritage, as long as it matches with the Fuhrer's idea of German heritage.

    300. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      I'd say that economically, Fascism is as close to Communism as it is to Capitalism. The the middle between the two ideas. Socially, yes, they both were totalitarian.

      But Capitalism doesn't require a totalitarian gov't to continue operation. It's not as if Fascism is less totalitarian than Communism; both make all individuals serve the state.

      A free market republic can be capitalist, while the individuals pursue their own happiness within the constraint of the law. A capitalist system does not require coercion to the same degree communism does; the coercion used by fascism is not simply the average between communistic/capitalistic systems.

    301. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      From the wiki page on Nazism, under "Anti-Communism", Hitler said in 1931:

      "I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."

      The society trumps the individual. They're certainly no communists, but they're socialists in that they think the "good" of the many shall take precedence over rights of the few.

      That's a socialist view of the relationship between man and his gov't, in the 1930s, and I didn't dig very hard. So much for socialism being completely purged by then, eh?

      But go ahead and take pride in your right-thinking. Double plus good on you, Comrade.

    302. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      the problem with climate change (the new leftwing moniker) is that it's been so politically charged as a power/money grab for the left, and as an easy rabidly emotional counter by the right, that it's impossible for the average citizen to get unbiased information. The GOP is right in one area: The scientists themselves are graduating from the ivy leagues, which are heavily dipped in leftwing ideology and groupthink on a variety of issues. While science can eventually prove the truth, I'm afraid their heads are far too deep in the ground to help us before it's too late, assuming the science is sound. This is similar to the way the GOP ties religion to 'correctness' as a means to imply legitimacy it doesn't deserve, and justifies giving it preemptive control over the culture. In contrast the left is treating climate change as a religion. It shouldn't.

      Federal ID makes sense if you consider the state as a default benign entity. It's not. It's a bureaucracy made up of people, and like any other group (like a corporation perhaps), coalitions are formed, personality cults are encouraged which result in natural tendencies to attack the rights of the citizens it rules over. These people will look for ANY excuse to grab resources to their own ends. If they can convince you with irrational fear mongering rhetoric that the other side(s) is just flat out wrong just to make you a reliable voter, they'll do it. This is no different than the mentality of advertisers. Of course, you're right about the GOP's stance on it too. Either we have state ID or we don't. That doesn't mean we shouldn't defend our borders, keep illegals out, and reign in H1B programs.

      If religious groups can be directed to compromise, then they have no reason for being. The whole point is absolute consistency (note I'm an atheist) of belief because it provides psychological comfort (at the expense of knowledge). While I find faith laughable, I do respect the right of others to believe as they wish. They just shouldn't have the right to dictate that I believe as well. They should also not be immune to critique. In a free society, no one should. Criticism and judgment are key components of discourse, which is something the left is also having more and more trouble with these days (criticizing a non white straight male = 'hate' speech etc). Many leftists would love to see the first amendment curtailed just for these groups!

      the fact is, corporal punishment does work.. in the short term, the same way state sponsored censorship works in the short term. in the long term, both create psychological damage, especially when used to silence legitimate questioning or expression. The 'zero tolerance' ideology used today comes straight from interpretations of socialist theory. Both bullies and victims are punished equally..or worse, the kids are taught to run to authority with their conflicts, which then tells them to play patty cake and make up without resolving the underlying issues (which the faculty then ignores). Then 4 years later, a columbine occurs and everyone wonders what happened. The kids should be taught to stand up for themselves. This is how bullies are dealt with, but the left has such an anathema to physical violence which precludes them allowing situations where children learn to grow thicker skins. In fact, most of today's social problems are rooted in the passive aggression caused by this.

      The schools' public funding conduits provide easy ways to push ideological agendas down the pipe.. even if the teachers and local staff are honest, the people in washington are not. I certainly don't agree with the GOP in terms of biology, but I don't agree with the left's attempts at brainwashing students (and thus society) into thinking stupid shit like:

      1. men are always the aggressors and women are always the victims, that men have sole proprietorship of sexual responsibility, while the women have sole proprietorship of childbirth,
      2. the long winded yearly prattling about black and women's history months.. seriousl

    303. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      The best way to define socialism is to look at what these things have in common and there is only one single attribute they all share: the belief that the profit of productive labour must be owned by the performers of that labour.

      If that definition were actually true, socialists wouldn't be in such love with things like free education and healthcare. In order for any such services to be provided for free, they must be paid for by someone; and the system of free benefits guarantee that the people who benefit have not put in equal effort; yet benefits are to be equal regardless.

      Unequal efforts yielding equal outcomes means that someone's profit from their labor is being forcibly taken to benefit another.

      If your definition is true, then it is anti-socialist to have free healthcare or free education. Would you agree with that conclusion?

      People tend to think of free education and healthcare as the markers of a proper socialist society. Do you disagree with them?

      The definition of socialism I've been using is, "good of many outweigh the rights of the few". So free (or universal) healthcare/education that takes away from some individuals is justified in socialism on the basis that it benefits society in general despite the inequity of who pays for it. Socialist society is ordered around serving the good of everyone, for some arbitrary definition of "everyone".

      As should be obvious, the people who decide who "everyone" is wield much power in a socialist society.

      Utterly false. The economic philosophies of various brands of socialism are unrelated to and can exist independently of political or ideological positions such as racism. Removing the Jews was based on outright racism, of a very specific variety: create a common enemy and blame them for all the ills in your country. This gets you popular with your population, then turn them on that "enemy". The Nazis just ended up taking a very old strategy a bit further than most. The best modern-day equivalent would be how the republican party entertains the religious right's fear of gay-rights and promises to help fight the "great pink conspiracy".

      You're treating socialism as a purely economic philosophy. I disagree; it influences the political system as well, as it suggests what gov't is supposed to be doing.

      Yes, the Holocaust was racist, and socialism does not require racism or genocide. But the philosophy behind the genocide is that the Jews were detrimental to the welfare of Germany. Their right to exist was trumped by Germany's prosperity (which was supposedly hamstrung by the Jewish presence).

      The good of the many trumping the rights of the few is socialist (as I have defined it). (Not that the actions actually served the good of Germany; but that was the intent of the actions)

      If you'd like to continue the discussion using your definition of socialism, please elaborate on how your idea of socialism should be implemented in society and gov't, as it apparently contradicts socialism as implemented in various Western nations.

    304. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Yep, good set of quotes there - Lovins has spun off 5 for profit companies dealing with conservation of energy and energy efficiency - cheap clean abundant energy would definitely be "nothing short of disastrous" for them. Paul Erlich is a conservationist concerned about overpopulation and related effects - another obvious concern that deals with not the argument against clean cheap energy, but more what the population will do to the rest of the environment with it. While could be considered part of the "greens", they have significantly different interests and views on the "free" energy question that have little to do with being against a cheap clean abundant energy source in and of itself.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    305. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      I agree as far as a "complete package" (e.g. including both social and economic policies) Fascism is much closer to Communism then Capitalism. I was only pointing out that Economically, it was the in-between and equally as close to Laissez Faire Capitalism (complete hands off) as Communism (complete hands on).

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    306. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      For your interpretation, it requires an additional comma. That is an enumerated list of 2 elements, not 3: 1) HOTS, 2) critical thinking and similar programs. If you have only 2 elements, then the conditional portion could apply to each element. However, I've as the "critical thinking" lacks the extra capitalization, I'm inclined to believe it cannot be considered a specific re-labeled OBE program. The better reading it as an enumerated list of 3 elements: 1) HOTS, 2) critical thinking, 3) similar programs that are re-labeled OBE. When there is an omitted second comma of a multi-element list, all sections following the "and" apply only to the final element. However, I'm willing to allow that they're not intelligent enough to know that (it's pretty esoteric as it is and grammar has been evolving on that point because so few people know how to use it properly - and for a living language, current usage is what matters no matter how far off it is from the original rule sets), so that leaves this as open to interpretation, except... there's one more part of the statement that clarifies things.

      See, you skipped over the part that matters: the reasoning: "because it challenges fixed beliefs". In order to have critical thinking, you have to challenge fixed beliefs. Therefore, the second interpretation, where critical thinking is to be opposed directly and in and of itself, is the correct one. They have given you the clues right there to work it out. They did not say "because OBE and derivative programs have been proven ineffective", which would have lent support to your version. No, they directly attacked critical thinking and logical reasoning as the evil which must be opposed, and also mentioned two specific programs on the side.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    307. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Now Democratic politics, internal and external, are almost entirely based on dividing people into tribes by race, gender, etc. and voting along those lines.

      Don't hate the player, hate the game. The divergence of interests along cultural and (more saliently) class lines among American voters isn't some sort of conspiracy the Democratic party invented at a conference circa 1992 -- or do you think half of the American people are so stupid that some guy can stand up at a podium, tell them that rich whitey bible thumper is out to get them, and they blindly accept it? Do you really believe men are so craven, or that masses so foolish, or that this behavior is (conveniently) exclusive to people you happen to disagree with?

      Even better, if someone doesn't think they're getting fair shake for any reason, do you expect them to roll over and play dead because their problem doesn't meet some cultural authoritarian's sufficiently patriotic standard of a legit grievance? People fight for what they think is right, and if they think they're getting a shitty deal because they're black, or poor, or blue collar, or non-protestant, you should expect that this opinion comes from personal experience and first-hand knowledge. Democrats lost middle class white males for a generation by condescending to their legit concerns, it's no surprise that Republican condescension to the concerns of African-Americans, immigrants, women and the educated produces the same result.

      Alas, I'm not sure any of this applies to the Democratic party, so wrapped up in the rentier economic power structure they are, I'm not sure they'd know how to exploit a 10-man hotel workers strike, let alone nationalized, concerted communities of interests, like "tribes" as you put it -- a clumsy use of this term, meant to demean people as savage or uncivilized, for having the gall to disagree with you and vote that way.

      Of course there are other details to consider, by running as an R he didn't have to spend much on the primary and could avoid the pandering to the base required to secure the nomination, making the win in the general a lot simpler since he didn't have to weasel out of those positions.

      I admit strategically it was a good idea, mainly because the conservative Republican voting constituency in the City is impotent and ineffectual, and given New York's rules for party balloting and conservative's preference there to run under a "Conservative" banner. A jungle primary in the district probably would have accomplished the same end.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    308. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      I don't think nationalized industries are halfway between hands off and hands on.

      If the gov't is your boss (pays your salary, can fire you), that seems pretty hands on to me.

    309. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by bledri · · Score: 1

      I assume that when they say "challenging the student's fixed beliefs", they also mean something else entirely instead of insinuating that challenging beliefs is somehow fundamentally wrong?

      Of course they mean something different. They mean challenging party-line Christian conservative, anti-evolution, anti-AGW group think is immoral and will not be tolerated. Challenging lefty-commie-pinko beliefs is mandatory, especially those that are backed by actual science. Thank God Texas has a huge influence on school text books across the nation...

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    310. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Under Fascism all industry is not nationalized. Having some industries nationalized while some are not would be in the middle of "all hands off" and "all hands on".

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    311. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the poor oppressed majority. I feel so sorry for their inability to understand why they are called "flat earthers" when they reject a bunch of scientific organizations coming out with unprecedented statements and calls for action as "some UN report" and or a conspiracy by someone who is just riding the wave (e.g. Gore) all while no one is taking their fucking self-relying-omg-gasprices-trucks. Fake skepticism and fake self reliance garner any sympathy from me.

      Very few of the "skeptics" actually give a shit about evidence, they are more like a giant meme re-processor where one of them either comes up with something, misinterprets some small bit of evidence that someone stuffed down their throat when they weren't careful or misinterprets something coming from a legitimate skeptic. They proceed to post it on their skepti-blog, then other pseudoskeptics re-digest it as facts on their own blogs, and it just continues for years, even when the state of art has moved on.

      The self-non-reliant folks are even worse. Even the nuttiest doomsdayers don't actually seem to have any clue how incredibly comprehensively you'd need to prepare to be actually self reliant. The mainstream self-non-reliants think that the ability to not go into the city for a month or two is self-reliance, another set believes that surviving a few years is enough to return to a reasonably stable system where they can trade whatever singular item they hoard the most of and then there is the set that thinks the ability to loot the remnants of civilization while shooting other looters is self-reliance.

    312. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see the hypocrisy, exposing his ad hom and calling him a douche is quite legitimate, if not necessarily polite. You'd only have used an ad hominem argument if calling him a douche was the basis of your argument, not the conclusion.

    313. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know Snarfie, either you're an idiot or you're a brilliant satirist making fun of the things you appear to support. Until I see any inkling of the later, I'll have to assume idiot is correct.

    314. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      In general the the further right you are politically the more authoritarian your viewpoint is. The more you take your viewpoint from those you consider authority figures rather than making it up for yourself. It's easier that way since you don't have to think it out for yourself, just parrot your authority figure. These are the same kind people who think if you're rich it's because you've been blessed by God and therefore you must be better than the rest of us instead of just maybe luckier than many of us. That kind of thinking is pretty alien to me.

    315. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The only reason the right holds as much power as they do is that they bow down to their authority figures and stick together. Trying to get a bunch of leftists on the same page is like herding cats.

    316. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by ToadProphet · · Score: 1

      Again, no. And you're missing the point - you claimed Fascism 'competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism' which is incorrect. Fascism arose as the honeymoon period with communism with coming to an end. The fascists primary beef with communism was that social ownership translated into a very poorly run state. The remedy, as they saw it, was for the state to take the control back. In that sense it was very much the opposite of communism.

      Both are socialistic - individuals exists to serve the state

      No, and perhaps you're unclear on what socialism actually is - it's intended to be social control, not state control. What it became in the Soviet Union and elsewhere has as much in common with 'socialism' and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has in common with democracy - in name only. The failings of socialism are certainly not the reasons you list - rather, it's that we can't actually implement it without it being co-opted by tyrants and dictators.

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    317. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Great response. Thanks for speaking out.

    318. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Again, no. And you're missing the point - you claimed Fascism 'competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism' which is incorrect. Fascism arose as the honeymoon period with communism with coming to an end. The fascists primary beef with communism was that social ownership translated into a very poorly run state. The remedy, as they saw it, was for the state to take the control back. In that sense it was very much the opposite of communism.

      Fascism is not simply the opposite of communism. It was an attempt to improve on the available forms of gov't. Liberal democracy was seen as inept and too partisan, incapable of getting things done. The free market were seen as too volatile and in need of gov't control. Fascism "fixed" this by centralizing power and decision making in a dictator who would ideally micromanage the economy away from depression type situations.

      The distinction you try to draw between state control and social control doesn't mean much to me. Both communism and fascism ended up involving a centralized gov't wielding power over individuals. What does social control look like in a communist state? It's the people with political power making economic decisions. In the fascist state, it's the political elite making the same decisions for nationalized industry. Both are authoritarian gov'ts which try to manage the economy for the greater good of society.

      There are important differences between the systems, but fascism and communism look similar because they share the same root ideal; elites are considered the most qualified to make all decisions for everyone.

      No, and perhaps you're unclear on what socialism actually is - it's intended to be social control, not state control.

      As I note earlier, I find the distinction between social and state control to mean little Both involve the people with political power making the important economic decisions. They're centralized command and control economies. (reactions to economic upheavel that occured under free markets)

      That socialism cannot be implemented without being "co-opted" is because it does not account for human nature. Human nature is selfish and greedy. There will always be a tyrant or dictator who wants to take the reigns. If socialism hasn't managed to account for that reality in the past 100 years, it deserves to be tossed in the trashbin of history.

      Good engineering designs a solution for the problem that exists, not the simplified problem that we wish to exist.

    319. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You see, that just demonstrates your authoritarian mind set to think that what Jane Fonda had to say back then means anything to current progressives.

    320. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >If that definition were actually true, socialists wouldn't be in such love with things like free education and healthcare. In order for any such services to be provided for free, they must be paid for by someone; and the system of free benefits guarantee that the people who benefit have not put in equal effort; yet benefits are to be equal regardless.

      But not ALL socialists support such initiatives. So they are not part of the concept of socialism. Many socialists do - but that's because they believe the over-all gain to society from free education and healthcare , and the increase in everybodies profits out of having them are far higher than what it costs. This is not technically socialism however, since there are even anarco-capitalist systems that include similar arrangements.
      Sometimes that logic is definitely correct as well. One example is public roads. The only country I know off that ever tried to have all roads built privately was the USA - they did away with it very soon (back in the 1920s) because it was an unmitigated disaster. Roads companies didn't take the most efficient path between two cities, because big businesses well OFF that path would pay them kickbacks to make sure the roads passed their business property.
      That meant every road user was subsidizing the cost of saving those businesses from relocating. If anything that's a worse cost on the economy than building roads out of tax money.

      >Unequal efforts yielding equal outcomes means that someone's profit from their labor is being forcibly taken to benefit another.

      Well, no system is perfect, socialism in the form advocated by the American left has a significant problem there, the same problem exists on a much bigger scale in capitalism though. Libertarian socialism on the other hand for example tries very hard to do away with the problem entirely by turning all enterprises into cooperations run by the people who work there, massively decentralizing all government and using direct-democracy to run a neighbourhood. That way the people who make the law (and set the tax rates) are the people who actually have to live with the consequences, and if those consequences aren't good - they can change it.
      Now some neighbourhoods will choose to tax-fund a school, others will choose to have their schools run as business cooperatives. Socialist Libertarians will never tell you which one is right because we believe there IS no right. What works in one community may not work the same way in another, that's why every community should have the power and freedom to decide their own priorities and find systems and solutions that work for THEM.

      >People tend to think of free education and healthcare as the markers of a proper socialist society. Do you disagree with them?

      Not people who actually studied philosophy. They are the markers of the modern-day left's VERSION of socialism. That is currently the largest socialist movement around but it is not the only one, it's not even the only ACTIVE one. This is partly a difference between terms-of-art and common-meaning of words but it's really more a case of associating elements of the currently-popular version of an idea with all versions of the idea even though they don't all share it.
      Until quite recently (on historical scales) socialist libertarians were a major force in politics even in the USA. The May Day uprisings in New York in 1895 were led by socialist libertarians who gave their lives to secure the 40-hour work-week for example. We honor them with a global holiday every year on the 1st of May. The vast majority of people don't remember what that holiday is about or the people who were unjustly executed (framed for murder) to make it happen. But people not knowing or remembering something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      >You're treating socialism as a purely economic philosophy. I disagree; it influences the political system as well, as it suggests what gov't is supposed to be doing.

      Terms of art again. Socialism IS a purely economic philosophy. It

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    321. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I always thought having universal health care would increase freedom and the entrepreneurial spirit in this country. How many people are afraid to quit their job and try and start their own business simply because they can't afford to take the chance they couldn't afford their medical bills.

    322. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by robsku · · Score: 1

      That was simply hilarious :D Thanks you and congrats for likely trolling several people reading this :D

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    323. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The idea of mandated insurance coverage came from the Heritage Foundation and was touted by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as an alternative to the Clinton's health care proposals. Too bad we just didn't say "Ok, we'll take that." back then. The right wouldn't have much to complain about now and we'd probably be talking about taking the next step into some sort of single payer system.

    324. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck can't we ever go beyond arguing about global warming, and get on with building the infrastructure that will allow us to replace fossil fuels? Whether fossil fuels cause global warming or not, they are only going to get scarcer as time passes, and that means that we will all be poorer. AND less able to build the replacement infrastructure. I think it is undeniable though that any sincere consideration of the question can come to only one conclusion: for the foreseeable future the only way to replace fossil fuels is with nuclear fission, especially breeder reactors.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    325. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by riverat1 · · Score: 1
    326. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PoliSci grad here... and you, sir, are an idiot: "Fascism and communism are both totalitarian ideologies that still have much in common despite their differences."

      Citation???? Proof???? Only fascism is totalitarian. Communism is nothing of the sort and arose as opposition to the centralization of the means of production with industrialization. The goal of the communists was not to concentrate power in the hands of the state, as in fascism, but to distribute it amongst the workers. In an idealized communist society the workers were everyone.

      The ideologies have very little in common, and from an academic perspective they are in sharp contrast. That they evolved into similar systems isn't relevant from an ideological perspective. Its an implementation failure. Communism will likely never be successfully implemented in our lifetime and possibly never. It seems it's destined to fail and devolve into a form of authoritarianism.

    327. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      But not ALL socialists support such initiatives. So they are not part of the concept of socialism. Many socialists do - but that's because they believe the over-all gain to society from free education and healthcare , and the increase in everybodies profits out of having them are far higher than what it costs. This is not technically socialism however, since there are even anarco-capitalist systems that include similar arrangements.

      But they are still socialists; you do not disqualify them as socialists for these policies. As you describe, their motivation behind these policies is an overall benefit to society, even at the cost to an individual's right to his own labor.

      So a socialist may think the individual has the right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor; but he can also think society's claim to those fruits outweighs the individual's claim. That is socialism as I have defined it, but it is not compatible with your definition of socialism, since the core principle you described was trumped by a different principle.

      Do you consider those socialists to be socialists according to your definition?

      I also do not see how an anarcho capitalist society can enforce a thing such as mandatory "free" healthcare/education. Who is collecting the dues, and how are they not a form of gov't?

      Terms of art again. Socialism IS a purely economic philosophy. It is often COMBINED with various political philosophies to form a particular platform but it can exist independently of them.

      The economic philosophy you describe as socialism is not exclusive with capitalism. The laborer can work for a capitalist, gather his wages as capital, and start a business using his preferred "socialist" management style. As long as the society treats men equally under the law, there is nothing preventing said laborer from enjoying the fruits of his labor as he sees fit.

      The philosophy of socialism that I have described is incompatible with capitalism (free markets), because it desires fairness in outcomes; in order to create this fairness, it must take the power of the state and use unfair laws to create "fair" outcomes. So by the definition I have been using, socialism MUST have an element of political coercion. (if it were entirely voluntary, it could accomplish the entirety of its goals under capitalistic free markets).

      To put it simply - the American Libertarian Party's members have a choice. The democratic party supports their political ideals EXACTLY, that is the party that wants to maximize civil liberty and equality, that thinks it's no business of government who you fuck. But the democrats ECONOMIC platform is radically out of line with their ideas of economic freedom. The Republican economic platform fits their ideas - but their socio-political platform is a direct contradiction to libertarian ideals. It's one of censorship and discrimination (this same GOP paper talks of how evil "homosexuality" is).

      This is another area where we'll disagree. The government stepping in and declaring gay marriage is a right is anti-libertarian. Those who do not support gay marriage are forced by the state to recognize it. (Their liberty is infringed for the sake of gays to marry).

      The libertarian position is to get gov't out of the marriage business so that both pro and anti gay marriage advocates can choose to use their own definition in their social circles. That yields maximum liberty, as far as that single issue is concerned.

      A more practical compromise is to let each individual state choose how they will define marriage; again both pro and anti gay marriage advocates will have the choice to live as they see fit, though they may have to migrate to a different locale.

      But the scenario where the gov't actively imposes the "correct" prejudices upon its citizens is anti-libertarian. Which is exactly how the American Democrat party likes to operate; some peoples are more "eq

    328. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Citation???? Proof???? Only fascism is totalitarian. Communism is nothing of the sort and arose as opposition to the centralization of the means of production with industrialization. The goal of the communists was not to concentrate power in the hands of the state, as in fascism, but to distribute it amongst the workers. In an idealized communist society the workers were everyone.

      Soviet Union. Thought crimes, gulags, Holodomor ...

      How did you get your poli sci degree without knowing about the horrors of communistic gov'ts? Did they not require a quick overview of 20th century history? Do you think people escape Communist Cuba over the ocean in tiny boats because they're free to live how they want?

      You bloviate on "ideal" communism and ignore the reality of communism was actually implemented. (the failures of which are completely predictable given human nature; Ideal communism isn't going to happen because of how us people function) If you're the example of how "smart" people are supposed to think, I'll stick to being an "idiot".

      Communism will likely never be successfully implemented in our lifetime and possibly never. It seems it's destined to fail and devolve into a form of authoritarianism.

      So I'm an idiot for talking about communism as a totalitarian system of gov't even as you acknowledge that is the destirny of Every. Single. Communist. State.

      Today I learned from a poli sci major that making an accurate observation about reality makes one an idiot.

    329. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      he said that the terms "higher order thinking skills" "logic" "critical thinking" and others have been coopted by the left as compliance with their ideology. largely, he's correct

      Could it be that, when examining the actual evidence using "logic" and "critical thinking", the policies and ideologies of the left are more likely to be supported? Just throwing that out there. It's certainly been the case for me in my own analysis of historical economic data.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    330. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      For your interpretation, it requires an additional comma.

      Wrong!

      The "Oxford comma", which you are referring to is NOT required, and in fact is specifically recommended against by the AP style guide (used by American journalists and anyone writing anything intended for release to the press).

      The phrase in question can be an enumerated list of either 2 or 3 elements, and both interpretations are "correct" grammatically.

      I strongly agree with you that the Oxford comma SHOULD be required, and if you want to start a campaign for it you will have my support, but for the time being it is not.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    331. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Do you consider those socialists to be socialists according to your definition?

      Sometimes. Only when it happens in a democracy - where every individual had equal amounts of power to support or prevent those initiatives. The more democratic, the more socialist is becomes. In a libertarian socialism, it's perfectly compatible since the SAME people who are sacrificing some of their labour have CHOSEN to do so.

      >I also do not see how an anarcho capitalist society can enforce a thing such as mandatory "free" healthcare/education. Who is collecting the dues, and how are they not a form of gov't?

      I never said "mandatory" many anarco-capitalist see these are well served through voluntary charity - that is the same goal, it just doesn't need a government. Even without that, it can still happen, anarchisms are not devoid of law, just of government, the people make the laws by direct democratic votes - but they are still laws. Indeed the most common critisizm against anarchism is that it can devolve into a tyranny of the majority, this is why most anarchist favour massive decentralization - to keep the voting pools very small, exactly to reduce that risk.

      >As long as the society treats men equally under the law, there is nothing preventing said laborer from enjoying the fruits of his labor as he sees fit.

      No, in capitalism ONLY business owners see the fruits of their labour. Labour sold is not always sold at a loss (otherwise profit cannot exist). In true socialism, all businesses MUST be owned by ALL who work there, the management done by democratic vote rather than authority and the profits divided evenly. Some variations have incentive bonusses to encourage hard work (a greater share of the profits for those who work harder).
      That said - in theory this is quite possible in capitalism, it's that possibility which socialist libertarians are using to build our ideal systems within the current system. But they are at a major disadvantage. True cooperations aren't even LEGAL in many countries (Britain for one) as the law holds that somebody MUST take final responsibility and therefore MUST have final authority (though there are sufficient leeway that variations do exist in Britain), most countries also do not grant advantages like limited liability to cooperations. So the problem is - all men and all forms of business are NOT equal under the law.

      >The philosophy of socialism that I have described is incompatible with capitalism (free markets), because it desires fairness in outcomes

      There's a huge difference between free markets and capitalism. Don't conflate the terms. Socialism DEPENDS on free markets just like Capitalism does - but socialism is NEVER compatible with capitalism.

      > in order to create this fairness, it must take the power of the state and use unfair laws to create "fair" outcomes.

      Wrong. There are other ways. Again I refer you to socialist libertarianism - which has no state to speak off, nor any state power to use. State-socialism became quite successfull for a part of the 20th century, so everybody assumes it's the only kind. Which is quite sad since it's probably the LEAST effective and certainly the WORST kind.
      I am a socialist, and I despise the very IDEA of governments. If anything, I want LESS government than right libertarians want.

      >if it were entirely voluntary, it could accomplish the entirety of its goals under capitalistic free markets
      False. Capitalism is FILLED with coercion. The vast majority of people MUST take ANY job they can get under ANY terms they can get it - and dare not ever question the authority of their bosses. If they disobey - they are fired, which is tantamount to starvation. That is coercion by the threat of death.
      The only things that make it slightly LESS coercive are socialist ideas like charity and wellfare - which can take a bit of the sting out of the capitalist coercion. Not enough to make it just or equitable or non-coercive. Just enough to keep the unemployed alive- which benefits the

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    332. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Energy production can have an enormous impact, or virtually none at all, although we're very poor at making the latter on a large scale. My statements were merely to counter the blatant assertions in the GGP post, with a hypothetical scenario that proves that the core of his assertion was incorrect, which you just validated in your post. Thanks.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    333. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      not when someone points out hypocrisies in a left wing 'social justice' group. Then they dig their heels in as much as the most devout baptist preacher does over evolution.

    334. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      They keep getting elected. For a politician, that's success.

    335. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by djchristensen · · Score: 1

      I think this staunch religious stand is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm not a student of politics, but I don't think conservative religious belief has always had so much sway over the political right. They've somehow managed to take over the Republican party and wield it towards their own ends. I tend slightly towards the conservative side fiscally, but the social conservatives make me want to puke.

    336. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by jnaujok · · Score: 1

      Sadly, you take the definition of a Progressive think tank (run by ultra-1%'er George Soros) as the source of your definition.

      "Gee, Mr. Fox, what's your plan for Hen-House management?"

      I doubt that Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao defined their socialist/progressivist regimes as, "A long-standing ideology to repress the people, destroy the economy, stifle innovation, and kill millions while insuring the continuation of a decadent, hedonistic lifestyle for a carefully chosen elite."

      Funny how you criticize the US educational system, but have clearly never read or understood what the socialist movement (started in the latter half of the 18th century) and the newly re-named Progressive movement of the 20th century (renamed when the muckrakers and guys like Lenin made "communist" and "socialist" into bad words) have done or how they've been implemented. The fact, alone, that you don't see them as the exact same movement, with one version having a "candy-covered coating" is a truly sad commentary on your "critical thinking" skills.

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
    337. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the "Job Creators" then get back to me with what they say about the use of language and marketing terms for getting a lie across.

    338. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by fferreres · · Score: 1

      Agreed!

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    339. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      >Do you consider those socialists to be socialists according to your definition?

      Sometimes. Only when it happens in a democracy - where every individual had equal amounts of power to support or prevent those initiatives. The more democratic, the more socialist is becomes. In a libertarian socialism, it's perfectly compatible since the SAME people who are sacrificing some of their labour have CHOSEN to do so.

      Democracies are tyrannies of the majority. If a minority is coerced into sacrificing for the greater good - how is it socialism if a democracy does it, but not-socialism if done by a dictatorship?

      There is a meaningful difference only if we accept that the majority have the authority to define "the greater good" while an individual (the dictator) does not. In that case, we're back to the core principle: The greater good outweighs the rights of the few.

      Under that principle, if the majority (society) demands the fruits of an individual laborer's work, they can rightfully take it. Again, socialism as I have defined it. Again, incompatible with your definition of socialism (where the laborer's right to his own work is sacred).

      >As long as the society treats men equally under the law, there is nothing preventing said laborer from enjoying the fruits of his labor as he sees fit.

      No, in capitalism ONLY business owners see the fruits of their labour. Labour sold is not always sold at a loss (otherwise profit cannot exist). In true socialism, all businesses MUST be owned by ALL who work there, the management done by democratic vote rather than authority and the profits divided evenly. Some variations have incentive bonusses to encourage hard work (a greater share of the profits for those who work harder).

      ...

      There's a huge difference between free markets and capitalism. Don't conflate the terms. Socialism DEPENDS on free markets just like Capitalism does - but socialism is NEVER compatible with capitalism.

      We're using different definitions for Capitalism. I define it as "private ownership". Labor is a form of a capital. The business owner owns the equipment and land. The workers owns his own body and skills. In a free market, the worker voluntarily trades his time for cash; the business owner trades the worker's output for whatever it's worth. Each takes different risks and thus different rewards. (businesses can fail, after all; the owner can lose everything even as the worker walks away with his wages)

      The worker who is forced to work is being subjected to a form of slavery. This is not a free market. It also violates the concept of private ownership, as the worker does not own his body, and so it would also not be capitalism as I have defined it.

      I use these definitions because I have found them useful for understanding historical situations and systems. I find the definitions you offer rather arbitrary. They either fail to map to any principles; or they are inconsistent. "ONLY business owners see the fruits of their labour." is not a principle; at best it's an observation; practically it's just demagoguery. I feel like you're just using Socialism and Capitalism as labels for "stuff you like" and "stuff you dislike".

      It's anti-libertarian to make a declaration about ANYTHING related to a private persons private matters. If you don't recognize gay marriage you CANNOT be libertarian. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is: your freedom ENDS where mine begins, no earlier and no later.

      If a gay couple enjoys a committed relationship in their private home, that is indeed a person's private matter.

      If a gay couple wishes to have a "private marriage", no one else needs to be involved. Nothing further needs to be done; homosexuality has stopped being a criminal offense in pretty much any Western country.

      Marriage, however, is fundamentally a public matter. It conveys

    340. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Democracies are tyrannies of the majority. If a minority is coerced into sacrificing for the greater good - how is it socialism if a democracy does it, but not-socialism if done by a dictatorship?

      I suppose I would say it's more a difference of principle than of practical outcome. The difference is that in a (working) democracy nobody has any MORE power than you do to affect the outcome of a decision. Republics are less democratic than anarchies - hence it's less socialist in them than it would be in an anarchy (since representatives can coerce things which the vote did not support).

      >Under that principle, if the majority (society) demands the fruits of an individual laborer's work, they can rightfully take it. Again, socialism as I have defined it. Again, incompatible with your definition of socialism (where the laborer's right to his own work is sacred).

      Not sacred, that implies religion, this is about justice. And I never SAID that SOCIETY cannot have a share of a labourers work - that is completely outside the SCOPE of what is or is not socialism. My definition applies to who keeps the PROFITS of productive labour. Socialism is any belief system that those profits should go to those who PERFORM the labour, rather than to employers.
      The things you refer to - to a socialist is a completely unrelated topic. That is about the fact that no man is an island. All success is at least partially attributable to privilege (and any sociologist will confirm this: there is NO more reliable prediction about a child's future income than the income of his parents). Capitalists see privilege as an inherent right (with a few exceptions - Jefferson for example instituted the first estate tax to reduce privilege and prevent the rise of an aristocracy). Socialists see privilege as a debt to society. You got where you are on hard work (it's false that socialists deny this - they very much accept it) but ALSO thanks to privileges.
      Socialists believe those privileges are a LOAN, not a PROPERTY - and must be repaid, by extending privilege to OTHER people who have less (a pay-it-forward kind of loan - an idea first proposed by a capitalist in fact: Benjamin Franklin).
      But that is not a defining attribute of socialism, a lot of socialists believe this - enough that most socialisms include systems to achieve this (such as tax-funded schools), but many people reject this and are STILL socialists as they believes workers must own businesses.

      >We're using different definitions for Capitalism. I define it as "private ownership"
      Well if we can just make up our own definitions we're never going to get anywhere. Private ownership is an attribute of most capitalist systems but it's hardly the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a system of trade entrepreneurship is enabled by access to capital - there are many other ways entrepreneurship can work, but this concept is what sets capitalism appart from other market systems (free and non-free). This is it's defining attribute.
      A side effect of this is that in any capitalism power is apportioned according to capital obtained - which is why all capitalism tends to degenerate into fascism.

      > The business owner owns the equipment and land
      And not a single one of them own it by any concept that can be called just. That's rather a long argument with a lot of defining evidence. Too much to write out now, but luckily, I have a blogpost on the topic I can link you to.
      http://silentcoder.co.za/2012/01/the-libertarians-part-1-who-are-the-thieves/
      When socialist libertarians say the workers must own those as well - it's because we know it was their property in the first place and it was stolen.

      >businesses can fail, after all; the owner can lose everything even as the worker walks away with his wages
      That's a common argument, and a false one. For the vast majority of people - the vast majority of their wages is spent on basic requirements to

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    341. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      As an aside, the blogpost I linked is part of a four-part series, if you are interested - the rest are here:
      http://silentcoder.co.za/?s=The+Libertarians&searchsubmit=

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    342. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      I suppose I would say it's more a difference of principle than of practical outcome. The difference is that in a (working) democracy nobody has any MORE power than you do to affect the outcome of a decision. Republics are less democratic than anarchies - hence it's less socialist in them than it would be in an anarchy (since representatives can coerce things which the vote did not support).

      If I take you at your word here, the amount of "socialism" in a society is proportional to the amount of democracy built into the system. This is a contradiction of your earlier claim that socialism is purely economic and utterly apolitical. You don't get it both ways; pick one.

      Not so coincidentally, this again fits with my usage of "socialism" - socialism affects both economic and political aspects of our society, because it's a statement about values; economics is how people trade (make agreements), politics is what rules people will live by; the two are intertwined and ruled by what that society values. And it doesn't take much research to notice that the political system of a country affects its economic successes.

      Not sacred, that implies religion, this is about justice. And I never SAID that SOCIETY cannot have a share of a labourers work - that is completely outside the SCOPE of what is or is not socialism. My definition applies to who keeps the PROFITS of productive labour. Socialism is any belief system that those profits should go to those who PERFORM the labour, rather than to employers.

      Wages are "profits"; they are also immediate. The business owner doesn't get his profit until he sells the goods; which may or may not sell. Wages are low risk. Profit from building a factory, hiring workers, and then selling their goods is much higher risk. The level of profits reflect that risk. In a free market, the workers are free to build up their capital and try their hand at being business owners. Some make it, some can even make it really big.

      The things you refer to - to a socialist is a completely unrelated topic. That is about the fact that no man is an island. All success is at least partially attributable to privilege (and any sociologist will confirm this: there is NO more reliable prediction about a child's future income than the income of his parents). Capitalists see privilege as an inherent right (with a few exceptions - Jefferson for example instituted the first estate tax to reduce privilege and prevent the rise of an aristocracy). Socialists see privilege as a debt to society. You got where you are on hard work (it's false that socialists deny this - they very much accept it) but ALSO thanks to privileges.

      Here, you have just said that society owns everything; that effort->reward is a complete illusion.

      This philosophy of society cannot be equally important as "every worker deserves to enjoy the fruits of his labor", because under this view, the fruits of the labor aren't really owned by the individual; they're owned by society, and society shall dictate who rightfully owns it.

      >We're using different definitions for Capitalism. I define it as "private ownership"

      Well if we can just make up our own definitions we're never going to get anywhere.

      I believe I am quite justified in using my definitions. I am trying to understand your definitions, but they keep contradicting themselves. If you're fine with it, good for you, but that's a very good reason for me to not adopt them.

      > The business owner owns the equipment and land

      And not a single one of them own it by any concept that can be called just. That's rather a long argument with a lot of defining evidence. Too much to write out now, but luckily, I have a blogpost on the topic I can link you to.

      Let's try to apply your theory of capitalism. Explain how Apple stole its way to its billion dollar warchest.

    343. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >If I take you at your word here, the amount of "socialism" in a society is proportional to the amount of democracy built into the system. This is a contradiction of your earlier claim that socialism is purely economic and utterly apolitical. You don't get it both ways; pick one.

      The two points are not contradictory in fact. Socialism is not a political philosophy - but some political systems are certainly more conducive to socialist systems arising. Porn is not political but will be much more easily produced in a country that respects free speech. This is not a contradiction at all.

      >Here, you have just said that society owns everything; that effort->reward is a complete illusion.

      I did not say anything of the kind. I merely said that effort + privilege > effort alone.
      And I said that socialists hold privilege to be a debt owed to society. This is not a contradiction either since privilege by definition is NOT earned.

      >Let's try to apply your theory of capitalism. Explain how Apple stole its way to its billion dollar warchest.

      Apple was founded by people who lived in houses on stolen land, their business headquarters are on stolen land. Every single resource that goes into their products are taken from stolen land.

      >They started as a small company out of someone's garage; who did they steal from to build up to their current multibillion empire?
      The garage was already built on stolen land out of bricks made from stolen clay and wood cut from stolen trees.

      >All labor is not equal. (For example, deliberately pointless work does not create value no matter how many man hours are put in)

      This is a bit more subtle. Within a single company certainly all labour really is equal - the maths is simple. Let's take me. I'm an engineer who gets a very high salary (in the top 5% earners in my country in fact), I get that to make products our customers pay a lot for. My skills were expensive to acquire. We have a receptionist who answers phones and takes messages. Her skills cost a lot less to require and she gets paid a lot less - standard capitalist distribution.
      But it's false. If she wasn't there, I would have to spend MY time doing those things, which is time I could then NOT spend making products. So the real VALUE contribution of her to the company per hour is exactly the same as me.
      Since this is slashdot, here is a car analogy. A car has a fanbelt, cheap to make and easy to replace. It also has a flywheel, a much more complicated and expensive part that costs a lot more to make and replace. But take out EITHER and the car won't run. So their value to the car is identical.
      The only reason to pay more for a flywheel job is to encourage people to take them (since they have to invest more in their skills). But this is not actually needed. People become engineers even when engineers are badly paid (when I first studied engineering it was among the worst paid careers in my country - and hard to find work in). They do it because they love engineering. We'll lose the ones who are in it for the money sure, but all THAT will do is mean we get better engineered products.

      > You are flipping around the definitions; instead of the "no gay marriage" position being dominant in society, you make the "gay marriage" position dominant, even over the objection of a MAJORITY of people in a democratic system.

      I make the principle of "everybody is equal before the law" dominant. The whole reason for things like constitutional democracies is to allow you to DO things like that. To prevent democracy from being a tyranny of the majority.
      There is no liberty at ALL until everybody IS equal before the law.

      >And why not something like polygamous or incestual marriages?
      The latter has solid scientific arguments against it - but even so, I am not in principle opposed to it. I would speak out against it, but I would demand the government must NOT. The former OUGHT to be legal as well. There just aren't enough people who want it for it to be a po

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    344. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by fijiaaron · · Score: 1

      A dune sage brush lizard was used as an excuse to stop oil and gas drilling in west Texas and New Mexico. It's the new spotted owl.

      --
      Freelance QA & development http://one-shore.com
    345. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      The two points are not contradictory in fact. Socialism is not a political philosophy - but some political systems are certainly more conducive to socialist systems arising.

      Conducive enough that you will predict the amount of socialism based on political system alone?

      I did not say anything of the kind. I merely said that effort + privilege > effort alone. And I said that socialists hold privilege to be a debt owed to society. This is not a contradiction either since privilege by definition is NOT earned.

      Apple was founded by people who lived in houses on stolen land, their business headquarters are on stolen land. Every single resource that goes into their products are taken from stolen land.

      >They started as a small company out of someone's garage; who did they steal from to build up to their current multibillion empire?

      The garage was already built on stolen land out of bricks made from stolen clay and wood cut from stolen trees.

      In order for the resources to be stolen, someone else must have a rightful claim to it first. Who was it stolen from? Society?

      I also find it completely laughable that you consider "stolen land" to be the reason for Apple's success. So is the land in Steve Jobs' garage extra special, or does everyone have the ability to create a multibillion dollar corporation from the land under their garage?

      I call bullshit. Apple's wealth is ideas and execution. Steve had a vision and he gather people to execute it. He took risks, made good decisions, got lucky (right place at right time), and created billions of dollars in wealth through his efforts. While you think this represents a huge debt Steve owes to society, I consider it the converse; society owes Steve a huge debt for creating all those neat products with his ideas; and that debt is paid and realized in the reputation Steve gained, and the money that people have voluntarily traded for his products.

      Since this is slashdot, here is a car analogy. A car has a fanbelt, cheap to make and easy to replace. It also has a flywheel, a much more complicated and expensive part that costs a lot more to make and replace. But take out EITHER and the car won't run. So their value to the car is identical.

      Your analogy is flawed because you chose only to look at the critical components for car operation.

      If an LED goes out on the dashboard, the car does not operate at 100%; yet this failure is not equal to engine failure. Each part has a contribution, but not every part is strictly necessary.

      If the receptionist is fired, the engineer answering the phone may be wasting time; but depending on the phone load, it may not be a very large waste of time. The receptionist's job depends on her adding enough value to the company. (And she probably does, or she wouldn't get hired in the first place)

      I make the principle of "everybody is equal before the law" dominant. The whole reason for things like constitutional democracies is to allow you to DO things like that. To prevent democracy from being a tyranny of the majority. There is no liberty at ALL until everybody IS equal before the law.

      Everyone is equal before the law. A gay man is just as able to get married to a woman as a straight man. A straight man cannot get married to a man any more than a gay man. They are indeed equal in the eyes of law. Realize that "Marriage" in the law is the creation of a family between a man and woman, not "being with the person you really really like". We don't reject marriage licenses based on lack of romantic love; and "we really really love each other" doesn't allow either a polygamous or incestuous marriage between man and woman.

      This may not be *fair*, but that's how marriage is currently defined. If my country were to democratically choose to redefine it, I would not like it; but accept that as a democratic decision. In the meantime, my freedom of speech allows me to oppose it, and to demand my gov't reflect that.

    346. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Conducive enough that you will predict the amount of socialism based on political system alone?

      Not conclusively, but I can identify a trend - more of X tends to lead to more of Y without making Y dependent on X.

      >In order for the resources to be stolen, someone else must have a rightful claim to it first. Who was it stolen from? Society?

      Nope, Native Americans. I didn't say the people living there did the stealing. I just said it had been stolen. Buying stolen property doesn't make it unstolen however, no matter how many people have sold it since.
      You didn't read my blog link then.

      >I call bullshit. Apple's wealth is ideas and execution.
      For every 30 dollars apple spends on an ipod, only 1 dollar is spent on labor. Apple's wealth is exploitation. More than anything it's stealing other people labour by buying it for far less than a living or fair wage on the basis that nobody else is offering them anything better and their own government doesn't give a shit.

      > I consider it the converse; society owes Steve a huge debt for creating all those neat products with his ideas
      Steve Jobs was one of the most evil businessmen to ever live. Creating walled gardens is NOT something I think he should be thanked for. Society ought to HATE him more than most businessmen.
      I wouldn't say he was as bad as most oil company CEO's but he was certainly worse than most other I.T. CEO's.
      He's own co-founder quit the company because he couldn't live with his conscience in light of what it became !

      >and that debt is paid and realized in the reputation Steve gained, and the money that people have voluntarily traded for his products.

      Even if, for the sake of argument, I agreed with you (lets say we use a CEO I actually LIKE like say Bob Young instead), That has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about. The debt anybody who ISN'T born into poverty owes to everybody who IS - is completely unrelated.

      >Your analogy is flawed because you chose only to look at the critical components for car operation.

      Well then you could argue that in a worker-owned business there wouldn't be any ROOM for non-critical staff. After all, if your income is a share of the profit, you sure as hell won't give a share to somebody whom you don't NEED to give it to. That's less for EVERYBODY else.
      But what you're basically saying is that corporations are in the habit of employing people they don't really need, and NOT in the habit of doing things like mass-layoffs to try and ensure that there are nobody superfluous on the payroll, ever ? Strange, because that's the exact OPPOSITE of what all of them seem to do.

      >If an LED goes out on the dashboard, the car does not operate at 100%; yet this failure is not equal to engine failure. Each part has a contribution, but not every part is strictly necessary.
      That's debateable anyway. Most LED's on my car's dashboard are warnings of problems - which if I don't get them in time will LEAD to one of those critical components failing. The Oil-light for example is therefore not worth the cost of an LED, but actually worth the cost of every single engine part that would be damaged if I had an oil leak and kept driving because I didn't have the LED to tell me about it.

      >And she probably does, or she wouldn't get hired in the first place
      Yes, that proves MY point, not yours.

      >Everyone is equal before the law. A gay man is just as able to get married to a woman as a straight man.

      That's NOT equality before the law. The law right now gives straight people the right to choose who they want to marry with almost no restrictions. While gay people have a massive restriction - that in fact rules out everybody they may actually WANT to marry.

      >We don't reject marriage licenses based on lack of romantic love; and "we really really love each other" doesn't allow either a polygamous or incestuous marriage between man and woman.

      I already argued that it ought to, and in good time it will.

      I notice you co

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    347. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Not conclusively, but I can identify a trend - more of X tends to lead to more of Y without making Y dependent on X.

      Is socialism a philosophy or an outcome? Is socialism the economic/political system you build to create a good outcome, or is it the good outcome that comes from the economic/political system you build?

      Nope, Native Americans. I didn't say the people living there did the stealing. I just said it had been stolen. Buying stolen property doesn't make it unstolen however, no matter how many people have sold it since. You didn't read my blog link then.

      So because Native American's land was "stolen" from them, Steve Jobs doesn't deserve credit for creating wealth in Apple. Ridiculously irrelevant, unless you want to show how Native Americans would have developed a nifty personal music player with accompanying online store, until Steve Jobs came and stole their land. I skimmed your blogpost, but didn't find anything very convincing. I'll post a quick feedback post to your link later.

      For every 30 dollars apple spends on an ipod, only 1 dollar is spent on labor. Apple's wealth is exploitation. More than anything it's stealing other people labour by buying it for far less than a living or fair wage on the basis that nobody else is offering them anything better and their own government doesn't give a shit.

      To the extent that the Chinese workers are coerced into those jobs, that could be considered exploitation. Last I've read, they get higher than average wages (vs. farming), and there's plenty of people who wish to get a job working for the Apple factories. If voluntary, all that you're observed is that the workers contribute $1 to the $30 of value the customer pays money for.

      This is a mutually beneficial deal for Apple and the Chinese workers.

      Consider that those workers did not create the design; nor did they build the factories or the software or the overall package of the final Apple product. Those are not the skills the Chinese workers offer, but those are skills necessary to create the value that Apple products are worth to their customers. Those skills get the lion's share of the profit precisely because they're more critical and necessary to the execution. If you disagree, you're welcome to create a competing product that is better and cheaper than Apple's - I'm sure you'll end up eating their lunch.

      In the meantime, the Chinese workers get a cushier job at a factory, and can use those higher wages to improve their family's lot in life.

      Well then you could argue that in a worker-owned business there wouldn't be any ROOM for non-critical staff. After all, if your income is a share of the profit, you sure as hell won't give a share to somebody whom you don't NEED to give it to. That's less for EVERYBODY else.

      You brought up the car analogy, and you didn't even attempt to counter my observation. Any complex enough system will have non critical parts. If certain parts are critical, and other parts are noncritical, that means the parts are unequal in value. To take the human body for example, one can lose an arm or a foot, but losing the head or heart or lungs will be fatal. Your idea that "all parts are equally necessary and have equal value" is simply wrong, as shown by those two counter-examples. Create another argument all you want, but unless you can counter that evidence, your idea contradicts reality. As such, it does not have any value in explaining how the world works (e.g. reality), nor does it give any insight to how the world should work.

      >And she probably does, or she wouldn't get hired in the first place Yes, that proves MY point, not yours.

      Your point that she is of equal value to you, the engineer? Her existence as a receptionist does not guarantee that she adds value to the company. Nor does it show that she should be paid the same in wages as y

    348. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Okay, I spent some time browsing through your first post. Here are a few counterpoints and thoughts.

      Communism believes the economy should serve the people and the people one another. Capitalism believes nothing and nobody should serve anybody else (nor any tangible purpose) it should just exist.

      It would help your point to define what you mean by Communism and Capitalism, first. Though the meaning may be clear to yourself, other people may not be familiar with the meaning you're using.

      I'd agree with your summary of Communism's starting belief. (While also noting that Communism has been behind the worst butchery in human history despite any good intentions on their part; this makes it an extremely dangerous and despicable failed ideology)

      Your summary of Capitalism as a belief, on the other hand, is just a strawman. Do you really think supporters of capitalism say, "Capitalism is about the belief in nothing!"? Speaking as a supporter of capitalism, capitalism is based on the belief that there is a right to private ownership. Meaning that one can own property, and that this ownership grants control over how that property is to be used. This is a belief in "something", it is a belief in the existence of a natural right. You may disagree that this natural right exists, but that is a separate from what capitalists believe.

      Moving on to the main point of your post: "Property is theft"

      The answer comes from a rather odd next question: is right of conquest a valid right of property (it was held so in every culture in the world until very recently after all) ?

      If you say "yes":

      Well then the take-over of unused land by the destitute is a legitimate form of conquest, at least as legitimate in practical terms as any other.

      If you say "no":

      Well then the current "owners" of the land have no legitimate claim to it.

      You do have an interesting point and dilemma. But there is in fact a way for a "right libertarian" to answer it: Short version: You have a right to conquest only if you win.

      Let's say there is a "right of conquest", You say the poor are now justified to take a piece of property and claim it as their own under the "right of conquest.

      I shall agree that under the "right of conquest", those poor now own the property. Now what is to keep the original owners of said property from conquering the property back? And as the two groups conquer the property back and forth, who really owns the land now?

      "Right of conquest" doesn't really capture the principle at work here: Ownership is based on having the primary claim to an "object" - whether it be a piece of land, an animal, a machine, or just an idea. Your claim of ownership of a piece of land doesn't mean anything if a neighboring tribe comes over and drives you out of it. To own something, you must be able to defend your claim of onwership.

      It follows from this that that ownership flows from might; and it would seem that the strongest man in the world will own everything (as he can claim it all and then defend it). Yet we can also see that individual strength is really insufficient to defend a claim on everything; a very strong man could conceivably hold his own against 2 or 3 other men; but would be overwhelmed by 100 or 1000 men.

      One might think then that it is aggregate power that determines ownership; that the largest group of people with a collective "might" rating will own everything. To an extent this is true, as there have been great kingdoms and empires. Though none of these empires owned everything, we see that they failed to own areas precisely because of a lack of military might; and the areas they owned they did because they were able to exert their power there.

      So summarizing that as "might makes right", this seems to support the poor in your scenario taking unused land by "right of conquest".

      Yet we need to look also at how an empir

    349. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >While also noting that Communism has been behind the worst butchery in human history despite any good intentions on their part; this makes it an extremely dangerous and despicable failed ideology

      That is a half-truth. There has never been a communist state in all of history. The USSR certainly wasn't. The half that is true is that a lot of the people who served it and committed it's atrocities believed in the ideology of communism - which the USSR did not in fact subscribe to. It was in fact a system of state-capitalism.

      >Your summary of Capitalism as a belief, on the other hand, is just a strawman.
      I wasn't stating a definition of capitalism (nor was the previous line a definition of communism) the lines were specific and contextual - it was a reference ONLY to how these ideologies see the relationship of man to man, nothing more and nothing less. Capitalism does not demand that your actions serve a useful purpose, it tries to match reward to usefulness - but it does not demand it. That was the point I was trying to make -a contrast between the two ideologies on this particular point.

      That said, I'm no fan of communism - I think it was a failed ideology in most aspects - I wasn't trying to defend it, I think capitalism and communism are both failed ideologies and both incredibly dangerous.

      > But there is in fact a way for a "right libertarian" to answer it: Short version: You have a right to conquest only if you win.

      So you believe that right libertarians support a right of conquest ? Because I've never heard a right libertarian express that. In fact they tout their system as being superior precisely because it does NOT recognize a right of conquest. It demands a government to prevent conquest - it holds property rights sacred, a human right which nobody can take away, not even the government, but which that government is duty-bound to protect.
      That's their stated belief - it does not have anything in common with your version of it. Rothbard, Rand, Von Mises - I can't think of a single major right libertarian voice who has ever stated otherwise.

      >You say the poor are now justified to take a piece of property and claim it as their own under the "right of conquest.

      Context here, a lot of left libertarians do not recognize rights of ownership in property that is not in use. They believe that the destitute have the right to make their homes in, for example, abandoned buildings. I am highly sympathetic to this idea - though I don't support it, I am of the pacifist school of left libertarians who believe it is better to replace capitalism than to try and displace it by force. I do believe they have that right, I just don't think that exercising it would do them any good.

      > Now what is to keep the original owners of said property from conquering the property back? And as the two groups conquer the property back and forth, who really owns the land now?
      That's most of human history summed up - this is why I don't support this as a practical course of action, my core point is that property rights are a granted right, not a natural one, and this dichotomy highlights WHY this is the case. More interestingly though - that scenario wouldn't happen like that, it never has once since the turn of the 20th century. The destitute and poor outnumber the land-owners by far too much. Even with the force of government behind them they couldn't conquer it back if it's done en masse, it was done in a few places - the poor won (things tended to go rather badly LATER on because they gave new governments too much power but that's not relevant to their original victory). If it's a sufficiently large uprising, the government won't back the "owners" anyway, since the much larger contingent of non-owners are the votes they need.

      > To own something, you must be able to defend your claim of onwership.

      You may be right - but that is decidedly NOT a right libertarian point of view. Their view is that property rights are a human, natural right - and that the purpos

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    350. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      That is a half-truth. There has never been a communist state in all of history. The USSR certainly wasn't. The half that is true is that a lot of the people who served it and committed it's atrocities believed in the ideology of communism - which the USSR did not in fact subscribe to. It was in fact a system of state-capitalism.

      Call them whatever you want, each represents an attempt to create that "ideal" communist state. "Communism" is the siren song to lead a nation of people into a totalitarian system of oppression and slavery.

      That every attempt at communism fails reveals that communism doesn't work, despite all the special pleading that those examples aren't really "communism".

      Capitalism does not demand that your actions serve a useful purpose, it tries to match reward to usefulness - but it does not demand it. That was the point I was trying to make -a contrast between the two ideologies on this particular point.

      Capitalism "demands" that people have the liberty to do what they want with their property. The natural desire of all men is to increase their wealth; in a free market capitalist system, (the only type I wish to defend) they are free to use their accumulated wealth (capital) to gain more wealth.

      In a communist system, a group of armed thugs who claim to represent "society" steps in and declares that they can put this wealth (capital) to better use. They take this wealth by force and use it for their own selfish purposes. Every Communist "wannabe" state has its leaders become wealthy elites; all for the good of society, of course.

      So you believe that right libertarians support a right of conquest ? Because I've never heard a right libertarian express that. In fact they tout their system as being superior precisely because it does NOT recognize a right of conquest. It demands a government to prevent conquest - it holds property rights sacred, a human right which nobody can take away, not even the government, but which that government is duty-bound to protect.

      What I referred to as the "right of conquest" is the resolution of competing claims for the same piece of property. Every such conflict boils down to lethal force: you respect my claim or I will kill you. People are already willing to kill each other for food, so it's unsurprising that they do the same for land and other types of property. What makes a gov't useful and desirable is that it provides a system to resolve these claims *without* a bloodbath (within a gov't; multiple gov'ts often end up using war to resolve such issues). This tends to work out better for all parties. People create wealth; dead people can't create wealth. Killing people over property conflicts hurts the growth of wealth (generally speaking).

      I don't understand why you believe that "right libertarians" believe property rights are sacred. You've used the US as an example of a somewhat right-libertarian system; and in the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (from the very beginning of this nation's existence), "unreasonable search and seizure" is banned; with the implication and reality that "reasonable search and seizure" is allowed for.

      There is a natural right to property; but this right is not "naturally protected". (Natural rights are not what you have; it is what you have a right to fight and kill for) It is part of the theory of the social contract, that we voluntarily form and submit to gov't to help protect our natural rights, as the group can protect them better than any given individual. In the US, it is also recognized that the power invested in the group is itself a danger (see every example of tyranny), so that gov't power is limited in the Constitution (though severely undermined by the consistent efforts of the US Democratic party; who have in the past century chosen increased gov't power over individual liberty; aka statism over libertarianism).

      The US ceded th

    351. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >This philosophy is what makes you socialist: The group trumps the individual. The individual exists to benefit society; and if they do not provide any benefit, society can do whatever it wants to them.

      I am socialist, but I am not statist. I am a LIBERTARIAN socialist. I believe in individual freedom above all. But that is exactly WHY I reject capitalism. Capitalism has done nothing but turn the vast majority of people into serfs, and before that outright slaves - the only reason it replaced slaves with serfs is because serfs are a better investment (you don't lose money when serfs die).

      So economically - I believe that a FORM of socialism with no state at all is the best way to PROMOTE individual liberty. Nobody can have ANY freedom without the freedom to eat.

      I believe that those who create, must own the means of production and the resulting profits.
      That's my first principle. The businesses must be owned by their workers, and run by their workers.

      I believe that nobody can have authority over another except the collective vote of all. Government not by consent (that's not GOOD enough), but government by consensus. Everybody must have an equal say in the laws they live under, or it's ALREADY oppression.
      That's my second principle.

      I believe that humans evolved as a cooperative rather than a competitive species. We are much more bonobo than chimpanzee, we are at our strongest and achieve our greatest aims when we work together rather than try to trip one another up. To this end I believe society has a duty towards those with less, to ensure that ALL in society has at least a bare minimum standard of living, if even one person doesn't have it - your society has ALREADY FAILED.
      That's the third principle.

      Property is NOT liberty. Property is a tool, a means to an end, a useful tool at times - but it can also be used for great evil. So like any tool that can be used for good or evil, it's use must be constrained so that those with more of it cannot use it for evil (to oppress those without). The end result of absolute property rights is that sooner or later, there is nothing left unowned, and a generation born that are trespassers from birth - with nowhere to live, nowhere to produce, and no right to be alive. We're already on the verge of that. It's already begun in some places. People get more, resources do not.
      That's my fourth principle: property is just a tool and must be used for the good of others, or lost.

      Economic power is just as prone to abuse as political power, therefore the only way to have a free society is to have all trade among people of EQUAL economic power (that's not the same thing as equal WEALTH - though that would be ONE way to achieve it, I don't personally believe it's guaranteed to be the best way).
      If we are all to be equal before the law, we must all be equal in power of contract as well. Only when employees really CAN dare to quit, can they negotiate for FAIR contracts (as an example).
      That is the fifth principle: freedom from economic OR political oppression.

      Practically everything in your post was ideological restating of the bullshit they teach in schools without ever questioning the underlying fundamentals (no the natural urge of people are NOT to increase individual wealth - the VAST majority of people OPPOSE greed and consider it a BAD thing whom they actively seek to avoid in their lives - and ALL the religions on earth reflect the universality of that view by declaring it sinful - capitalism rewards the tiny minority who EMBRACE greed - psychopaths by the WHO definition).
      So I figured I'd state MY ideological positions without bothering to back them up further as well.
      Most of what you say about right libertarianism shows you have no idea what it IS or what it's principles are. I did NOT use the USA as an example of it because it has NEVER been a right libertarian state. I used the writings of the US's strong right libertarian CONTINGENT (and their most notable LEADERS) as the basis of my view. Read Ayn Rand

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    352. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      So economically - I believe that a FORM of socialism with no state at all is the best way to PROMOTE individual liberty. Nobody can have ANY freedom without the freedom to eat. I believe that those who create, must own the means of production and the resulting profits. That's my first principle. The businesses must be owned by their workers, and run by their workers.

      So what do you do to a business that does not operate in the way you like it to? You use the power of society to change how they function. You confiscate and repurpose property because it's for the "good of society".

      That's what we call "statist" power. The only way for it to not be statist is if you make it voluntary on the part of the business owner to comply, in which case you leave open the option of people choosing *not* to do things that way. But you've already said that that level of freedom for the business owner is unacceptable.

      Nobody can have ANY freedom without the freedom to eat.

      ... That's my fourth principle: property is just a tool and must be used for the good of others, or lost.

      Food is property. So on one hand, one has the right to owning some bare minimum level of food for consumption; but on the other hand, one does not have any right to owning any property (which includes food). Once again, contradictory.

      Your idea of freedom is warped. In some locales, food may just grow off trees, but in much of the world, food exists because people must put in a lot of work to grow it. Whose duty is it to provide food for one's freedom to eat? If there is no food, where does that minimum level of food come from? Is someone forced to be a farmer? Every right has a corresponding duty. Unless the duty for providing one's food falls on oneself, there is a person who is forced to work harder so as to feed himself and another.

      Practically everything in your post was ideological restating of the bullshit they teach in schools without ever questioning the underlying fundamentals (no the natural urge of people are NOT to increase individual wealth - the VAST majority of people OPPOSE greed and consider it a BAD thing whom they actively seek to avoid in their lives - and ALL the religions on earth reflect the universality of that view by declaring it sinful - capitalism rewards the tiny minority who EMBRACE greed - psychopaths by the WHO definition).

      1. I live in one of the most statist US states, CA, and went to liberal state schools filled with union teachers. If you think they teach (American) conservative philosophy there, you're wrong. (The majority of students end up subscribing to social liberalism)

      2. You're deluded if you think people do not act in their self-interest. People do what is rewarding to them; what they find rewarding is defined by their view of their self-interest. Each person's definition of self-interest varies - for some it is to accumulate money or fame, for others it is to raise a family, for yet others it is to practice religion and find purpose. For some, their self-interest is to further the "good of society". But all of those people are acting in self-interest. (I did not use the term "greed", nor do I say that "greed is good")

      It's not enough for a socialist state to have some of the latter type of people. Everyone must subscribe to that philosophy, otherwise you end up with free-loaders who break the system. So how do you deal with that? Either your society chooses to use its collective power (aka state power) to discourage and eliminate freeloaders, or you cannot have your socialist state. That is the trade-off socialists must make; and since socialists want their socialism, state power is their only option to make it work.

      The Nazi's weren't even SLIGHTLY socialist by ANY reasonable philosopher's definition of the term and I'm TIRED of giving you facts, figures and citations and being answered with

    353. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >So what do you do to a business that does not operate in the way you like it to? You use the power of society to change how they function. You confiscate and repurpose property because it's for the "good of society".

      No need, you simply don't give businesses a license to operate unless they are structured that way. We have a limited number of business structures NOW, we're just reducing the number a little further. The law has ALWAYS been involved in what is allowable structures for business, If only to ensure that there is a clearly line of accountability if the business breaks other laws.

      >That's what we call "statist" power.
      Only if you have a state. If all people are equal in power, then it's simply "the will of the people".

      >The only way for it to not be statist is if you make it voluntary on the part of the business owner to comply
      By your logic capitalism is statist now since it doesn't make the one-share-one-vote system in corporations voluntary.

      >But you've already said that that level of freedom for the business owner is unacceptable.

      Because it intrudes on the freedom of others. Nobody has the freedom to have power over others. That's exactly where ALL freedom MUST end.

      >Food is property. So on one hand, one has the right to owning some bare minimum level of food for consumption; but on the other hand, one does not have any right to owning any property (which includes food). Once again, contradictory.

      No contradiction at all in fact, the two sentences support one another. I never said nobody has property rights - I said property rights are a revocable right. Sometimes some of some people's property rights need to be reduced or revoked to protect the rights of others. So for example, some tax money in a state system should go to welfare. Arguably you can construct welfare in many ways and I'm the first to admit that current systems have major flaws - but the principle isn't wrong, an advantage of socialist libertarianism is that it can solve practical flaws of implementation like that with great rapidity.
      The question then becomes - whose rights should be curtailed and to what extent ? The system I propose as the most fair and just is to consider privilege a debt to society. That is to say, what we redistribute is not that which you earned, but a portion of that which you did NOT earn.

      >Your idea of freedom is warped. In some locales, food may just grow off trees, but in much of the world, food exists because people must put in a lot of work to grow it

      My idea of freedom has it's roots in the oldest known legal system on earth. The mosaic code. Among other things it declares:
      "A man walking across your field can leave with all he can carry in his stomache, but cannot bring a bag." - this is the "right to eat law". He can eat himself full, but he can't take MORE than he needs to eat. It also thus specifically curtails property law by saying you cannot call it 'trespass' to walk over your field. Indeed modern law systems still recognize that - it's generally known as something like the "right to wander".
      Two verses later it says "the final harvest of grapes may not be picked or sold. It is to be left for the widows and orphans"
      Clear reductions in property rights (from the SAME law system that first invented them with a prohibition on theft) to protect the rights of those with less privilege.
      As it happens, 70% of the people on the planet still claim that they LIVE by this law, yet any modern application of those principles are often opposed by people who claim to be part of that 70% (Christians). Now THAT is contradictory.

      >Whose duty is it to provide food for one's freedom to eat?
      Everybody's but the degree of the duty is determined by the level of excess you have.

      >Is someone forced to be a farmer?
      "Someone" is forced to be a farmer now, or we ALL die. We don't need to decide by decree WHO should be the farmer, we just need to leave the opportunity to farm and there will be farmers.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    354. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      No need, you simply don't give businesses a license to operate unless they are structured that way. We have a limited number of business structures NOW, we're just reducing the number a little further. The law has ALWAYS been involved in what is allowable structures for business, If only to ensure that there is a clearly line of accountability if the business breaks other laws.

      ...

      >That's what we call "statist" power. Only if you have a state. If all people are equal in power, then it's simply "the will of the people".

      ... I repeat: I don't believe in a socialist state at all. I believe in stateless socialism. Are you unable to read ? ...

      It is not that I am unable to read. I don't believe you can actually create your "stateless socialism"; it is inherently unstable and either becomes a "state socialism" or "not socialism".

      Let's look at your 3 statements here on what you want your socialism to be, and to do. It has business licenses, it is democratic, and it is "stateless". "Will of the People" means you must either hold elections (to determine the will of the people), or have an appointed/elections representative who presumably knows what the will of the people is at all times. That is a system of gov't.

      Additionally, this system of gov't has business licenses; meaning that you can restrict people from doing business. For the licenses to be meaningful, there is a threat of enforcement. Operate without a license, and there will be a fine. Failure to pay the fine? Jail. Failures to submit to jail? Violence. To manage business licenses, you now need a central licensing authority (to counter forgery of papers; to have the authoritative list of compliant business). That sounds like a gov't beuaracracy to me, which is an indication you have a state.

      Perhaps your idea of a state is only if there's a strong centralized gov't that enforces a national set of rules; My definition of a state is looser: A group of people represent the governing authority in a location. The small town's elected gov't is "state power" when they restrict land use, regulate market transactions, etc. A telltale indicator you have a state is if you have police to enforce the rules. Does your stateless socialism lack police? Is your stateless socialism free of criminals?

      If you answer yes, then you're wishing for a utopia. Good luck with building it, but please stay far away from me. If you answer no, then your stateless society has a state, and calling it stateless is a lie.

      >Is someone forced to be a farmer?

      "Someone" is forced to be a farmer now, or we ALL die. We don't need to decide by decree WHO should be the farmer, we just need to leave the opportunity to farm and there will be farmers.

      No, under our current system in western societies, anyone who wishes to be a farmer is compensated for it by market prices, plus gov't subsidies for political manipulation.

      Under your system, a farmer who farms enough food for 100 people has clear excess; society is justified in taking 99% of it and giving it to 99 other people. This farmer has no right to the fruits of his labor; he has no right to own that food beyond what what society decides to allow him. That farmer has no incentive to put in that level of effort next time; maybe he farms enough food for 50 people, or 10 people. Now you have a shortage of food, if there's 99 other people who want to be fed. Farming food takes time and skill; those 99 other people may not be able to farm food for their own needs. Now what? Force the farmer to always farm enough for 100 people?

      "we just need to leave the opportunity" - and presumably farmers will farm enough food. You've ignored the strong disincentive to farming your system has created. In contrast, a capitalist system creates a strong incentive to farm - personal profit. In a free market, competing desires f

    355. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Let's look at your 3 statements here on what you want your socialism to be, and to do. It has business licenses, it is democratic, and it is "stateless". "Will of the People" means you must either hold elections (to determine the will of the people), or have an appointed/elections representative who presumably knows what the will of the people is at all times. That is a system of gov't.

      Yes anarchism is a system of government but devoid of politicians, or holders of power. People vote directly on laws.

      >: A group of people represent the governing authority in a location
      I agree. Nobody represents in my system, all people have equal voting power on every decision.

      Read the wikipedia page on participism for a practical example of a possible socialist libertarian system.

      >Does your stateless socialism lack police?
      Yes.
      > Is your stateless socialism free of criminals?
      No but criminals should be cared for by society, rather than punished.

      >Under your system, a farmer who farms enough food for 100 people has clear excess; society is justified in taking 99% of it and giving it to 99 other people. This farmer has no right to the fruits of his labor; he has no right to own that food beyond what what society decides to allow him. That farmer has no incentive to put in that level of effort next time; maybe he farms enough food for 50 people, or 10 people. Now you have a shortage of food, if there's 99 other people who want to be fed. Farming food takes time and skill; those 99 other people may not be able to farm food for their own needs. Now what? Force the farmer to always farm enough for 100 people?

      Bullshit. I said nothing of the kind. What part of "Only unearned wealth is redistributed" don't you understand ?

      >but I don't know how you define basic human "need"; and whether that is universally objective or based on society's wealth level

      Ancient and long done. Look up Maslow's pyramid. No society is just unless everybody is at LEAST at level 3. State socialism ends up with nobody ABOVE that - capitalism ends up with most people not getting that far, both those outcomes are disasters in their own right.

      > and a belief that someone is keeping score (God if you're religious, society if you're not)

      Bullshit. You're rejecting the possibility that somebody may simply value other lives (especially multiple lives) more than their own outright, as if you can read all the minds on earth.

      I have direct family history of the opposite. An uncle who died saving several workers in a factory gas leak. He was a senior executive, they were minimum wage workers, he judged their lives more than his own.

      >Recall that my definition of socialism has consistently been that it uses the principle of "the good of society outweighs the right of the individual".

      Even THAT false definition doesn't apply to the Nazis since the jews were a PART of society. You cannot EVER be both segregationalist AND socialist the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

      > Remember also that they marketed themselves to the German people of the 1930s as a socialist party

      Just like China markets itself to the Chinese people as a democracy. Believe NOTHING a politician says, ever, THEN you'll start learning things about reality.

      >You may not personally favor state socialism, but right now you are defending the idea of state socialism from Nazi membership.

      No I am defending truth and honest debate from lies and stupidity.

      >For some reason, you feel threatened by the inclusion of a national socialist party as a type of "state socialism"

      Not "a" but "that". THAT one doesn't belong there, others do. The Appartheid government was nationalist and socialist (if terribly executed socialism - remember they actually believed they were UPLIFTING black people), but the German Nazi's were not socialist.

      >Your definition of socialism has been about how to implement it right; but your definition of socialism does not exclude ot

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    356. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      >Does your stateless socialism lack police?

      Yes.

      Then good luck chasing your stateless socialist utopia. Just beware the mass graves that litter the path you follow.

      Bullshit. I said nothing of the kind. What part of "Only unearned wealth is redistributed" don't you understand ?

      "Unearned wealth" is a loophole you can slip a million injustices through. The people who get to define "unearned" wield a tremendous amount of power. I know, your ideal system will not have politicians, every vote will perfectly capture the Will of the People with 100% consensus.

      But remember that *you* said that a minimum level of food should be given to every person. The farmer may have "earned" the food, but your system says that society has an innate claim to it You defined property as a legal fiction authored by society for the good of all; to be revoked when it serves society's purposes. If people are starving, the farmer's claim to the food he grew is kicked aside for the "good of society".

      Bullshit. You're rejecting the possibility that somebody may simply value other lives (especially multiple lives) more than their own outright, as if you can read all the minds on earth.

      You managed to quote an entire half a sentence to rant at. Bravo. But if you'd like to pay attention to my entire thought, "Self-interest is doing what you want to do".

      Your uncle chose a heroic action and valued the lives of others above his own. He acted in accordance with what he valued the most. Actions in pursuit of one's values is self-interest.

      When I say "self-interest", I do not mean "selfish goals", even though some people may define their self-interest to be selfish goals.

      . Believe NOTHING a politician says, ever, THEN you'll start learning things about reality.

      What gives you the idea I need this lecture from you? But if we're exchanging advice, I think you ought to beware political/economic philosophies that over-promise and never deliver.

      See above. Again - NO system of slavery and socialism can ever coexist.

      Slavery is making one man serve another.

      Socialism seeks the "good of society". It is willing to take from the man who has more to give to the man who does not.

      "From each according ot his ability, to each according to his need". The man with much ability is to serve the man who has much need. Socialism and slavery are quite compatible.

      Even THAT false definition doesn't apply to the Nazis since the jews were a PART of society. You cannot EVER be both segregationalist AND socialist the two concepts are mutually exclusive. ...

      >Perhaps we'll get closer to an agreement if we define what makes one a socialist. Is one a socialist based on intent, or outcome?

      Neither, Socialism is a philosophy not a design. If you embrace the philosophy that workers rather than business owners should earn profits and that all people deserve a certain minimum standard of living then you are a socialist. If you're a politician in any system you are likely to abuse power and commit atrocity, that's beside the point. Those beliefs are socialism, everything that espouses that is (at least claiming to be socialist), everything that does not, is not.

      You define socialists as those who believe "workers rather than business owners should earn profits and that all people deserve a certain minimum standard of living ".

      Two principles: Workers (group) over business owners (individuals). All (group) deserve a standard of living. (from who? unstated). Again, your formulation boils down to "the good of society trumps the individuals".

      You said Chairman Mao was a "state-socialist". He murdered millions of Chinese for various reasons; those who Mao murdered were no less a part of Chinese society than Jews were of German soc

    357. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You've basically defined self-interest as "whatever you do", I suppose I can reasonably feel you would add "unless violently coerced."

      Well if you can redefine your concepts to include EVERY possibility, then you can make any argument sound like you won it, that is however a fallacy.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    358. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Slavery is making one man serve another.

      So when the Nazi's had unpaid slaves working in their factories, they were engaging in slavery.

      >Socialism seeks the "good of society". It is willing to take from the man who has more to give to the man who does not.

      But it only takes what was there BEFORE he earned, which isn't HIS to begin with, it's a debt, and must be paid.
      Unearned wealth is NOT hard to define well - simple maths. What did you get BEFORE you were working ? And we won't even claim ALL of that (simply because it's not practical) - just that the more you started out with, the more your obligations become.

      >Two principles: Workers (group) over business owners (individuals)
      False, most businesses are owned by multiple people (shareholders). And workers ARE individuals, while businesses are NOT (much as capitalism like to treat them as if they are).

      >You said Chairman Mao was a "state-socialist". He murdered millions of Chinese for various reasons; those who Mao murdered were no less a part of Chinese society than Jews were of German society.

      I said he was a politician abusing power and that this would happen REGARDLESS of what philosophy he claimed to believe in. One of the worst and cruellest dictators of the previous century was an arch-capitalist (Pinochet) with one of the most free and unregulated markets that has ever existed. You can be a murderous bastard regardless of what economic policies you enact. But that's politics, the PHILOSOPHY of socialism is about what kind of society you want.

      As for your constant contradiction between "social good" and "individual rights" - that is only a contradiction if you're too stupid to understand the idea of balancing competing needs. The trick is to find a balance where individuals are the most free - and since BOTH those goals are about freedom, the balance isn't THAT hard to imagine. But in practice it can be tricky narrow down. This is where libertarian socialism has an edge - unlike free market capitalism it's NOT a utopian philosophy, it doesn't think there is ONE answer to every thing. In fact it thinks that for EVERY problem there are thousands of solutions and no single one is best,there is merely the best setup IN THIS COMMUNITY AT THIS TIME. The reason for government by consensus is to allow communities to try out various ideas, with everybody having the power to institute a change if the idea isn't working, and find solutions that serve their individual AND collective needs the best.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    359. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      You've basically defined self-interest as "whatever you do", I suppose I can reasonably feel you would add "unless violently coerced." Well if you can redefine your concepts to include EVERY possibility, then you can make any argument sound like you won it, that is however a fallacy.

      I helpfully put my entire definition in quotation marks for your benefit. It seems that is insufficient. Again:

      "Self-interest is doing what you want to do".

      -me

      See that word I bolded in the sentence? The one you left out in your paraphrase? "Want" - that means desire. We often do things we do not want to do, but that's generally to serve a goal that we value even more than the thing we don't want to do. That goal is the self-interest; each person defines it according to their own values and principles.

      We'll go back to your hero of an uncle, since you're proud of him and you don't think he acted in his self-interest.

      No one would want to be in that situation, but it's what happened. Your uncle was faced with a choice - act to maximize his own safety, or act to save his workers. He valued his workers. He wanted to keep them safe, even at risk to his own life. He desired their well-being over his own, and he then chose to act on that value.

      As far as "self interest" is doing what you *want* to do (because you value it), or accomplishing a goal that you want, your uncle acted in that self-interest.

      Not every person's self-interest is so noble, but society will do well if it has many people whose self-interest is like your uncle.

      But back to the point - people act towards their self interest. They seek what they want. Is this really that controversial of a concept?

    360. Re:Breathless summary by the clueless by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      So when the Nazi's had unpaid slaves working in their factories, they were engaging in slavery.

      Indeed, the Nazis practiced slavery. But my point was that slavery is not the antithesis of socialism, as socialism doesn't care about individual freedom, only how it prioritizes the interests of the group compared to the individual. If a socialist group feels its in their interest to practice slavery, then there's nothing in of the philosophy of socialism to stop them from doing so. (100% consensus of society is not a part of socialism; seeing how eager it is to take the means of production from the "capitalists" and give it to "the workers")

      You have not demonstrated that socialism is anti-slavery. I believe that socialism is very comfortable with making everyone slaves of "society" (vs. slave of a single owner).

      >Socialism seeks the "good of society". It is willing to take from the man who has more to give to the man who does not. But it only takes what was there BEFORE he earned, which isn't HIS to begin with, it's a debt, and must be paid. Unearned wealth is NOT hard to define well - simple maths. What did you get BEFORE you were working ? And we won't even claim ALL of that (simply because it's not practical) - just that the more you started out with, the more your obligations become.

      If a laborer accumulates his savings, buys a factory (means of production), and then hires workers to build things in the factory, your philosophy of socialism desires to take his work and redistribute it to the workers. ("laborers should own the means of production").

      You've accused Apple of stealing all their wealth; even though it started as a garage operation and grew into the giant corporation it is today. Your idea of "unearned" is flawed because you apply it to wealth that was created through effort.

      Additionally, where does "unearned wealth" even come from? If my parents leave me an inheritance, it may be unearned from my perspective, but it was the fruit of my parents' sweat and toil. They earned it, and if they were allowed the fruits of their labor they'd have complete control over how they choose to distribute it after they're gone. (But no, society shall now step in and take its cut, since every cut before then was insufficient, apparently).

      >Two principles: Workers (group) over business owners (individuals) False, most businesses are owned by multiple people (shareholders). And workers ARE individuals, while businesses are NOT (much as capitalism like to treat them as if they are).

      Businesses are not individuals, but they represent the collections of individuals' efforts. Every business owner, on the other hand, is an individual, and socialism desires to take away their ownership because the socialist feels they didn't "earn it". So in the name of "the good of society", property is taken away from the individual and given to society (the group).

      I said he was a politician abusing power and that this would happen REGARDLESS of what philosophy he claimed to believe in. One of the worst and cruellest dictators of the previous century was an arch-capitalist (Pinochet) with one of the most free and unregulated markets that has ever existed. You can be a murderous bastard regardless of what economic policies you enact. But that's politics, the PHILOSOPHY of socialism is about what kind of society you want.

      Nice dodge, but still a dodge.

      Is Mao a socialist? By your words, earlier, yes.

      Is Hitler a socialist? You haven't been willing to answer, but his actions were not much different than Mao. As far as actions reveal one's philosophy, Hitler shares a similar enough philosophy to Mao that he'd be a socialist by the same criteria. Hitler's philosophy was to create a powerful German socialist state, run by Germans (instead of Jews), for the benefit of Germans (instead of Jews).

      http://en.wikipedia.or

  2. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's so almost a month ago.

    I know posting old news to /. is a bad thing because that's what people tell me to think.

  3. Standing in the corner found effective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the section titled "Educating Our Children," the document states that "corporal punishment is effective" and recommends teachers be given "more authority" to deal with disciplinary problems.

    Time outs work much better.

    1. Re:Standing in the corner found effective. by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      In the section titled "Educating Our Children," the document states that "corporal punishment is effective" and recommends teachers be given "more authority" to deal with disciplinary problems.

      Time outs work much better.

      One on one session, discussing what was done, why it was wrong and how you'd feel if it were done to you is pretty effective, too. Punishing without any real exploration of the issue doens't accomplish much, but you just might find your kids becoming cagey and trying to get away with things rather than develop as good citizens.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Standing in the corner found effective. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      No they don't. Compare the crime rate in Singapore, where they still use corporal punishment, to the crime rate here in the US where timeouts are pretty much all the courts have to offer.

    3. Re:Standing in the corner found effective. by RazorSharp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Make them explain what they've done wrong and why it's wrong in writing. A 1-on-1 session too easily becomes a coddling session, especially if the kid is clever and emotionally manipulative. Forcing them to write essays critiquing their own behavior and only returning privileges when the essay is not only complete, but of sufficient quality, teaches critical thinking skills, morality, and grammar all at once.

      It amazes me how many schools think that a fifteen minute detention is an effective form of discipline, how many parents who think that a time-out in the corner will teach their children right and wrong. Of course, this nonsensical form of discipline extends to adults, too; just look at the prison system.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    4. Re:Standing in the corner found effective. by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      Oh man I remember having to write essays like this. It did a ton to convince me that adults were morons, an exercise in what does my teacher want to hear so that I'm out of trouble. As we all know teachers and administration are often wrong and make mistakes so making you admit fault on paper just builds quiet rage.
      They probably can't get away with it but I think making the kids clean the bathroom, paint the hallways, and wax the floors is a pretty good form of punishment, it's meditative as well. As an added benefit you can complete your punishment without being forced to admit guilt or fault.

    5. Re:Standing in the corner found effective. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps compare Singapore against Iceland where all they do is use timeouts, or Monaco as they're all quite small countries. Austria as a bigger country seems to have about the same crime rate while Japan has a smaller rate. Of course it is hard to compare as different things are considered crimes in different countries.
      The US seems to be the exception to the rule when comparing crime rates in developed countries, with a very high crime rate compared to similar countries.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Standing in the corner found effective. by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      In the section titled "Educating Our Children," the document states that "corporal punishment is effective" and recommends teachers be given "more authority" to deal with disciplinary problems.

      Time outs work much better.

      A vast majority of the time, certainly. But that doesn't mean there are not cases where a time out would be ineffective and other methods would produce results.

      /while I agree with what I said, I don't think teachers should be paddling students.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    7. Re:Standing in the corner found effective. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I saw some pamphlets from the late 18th century that said basically the same thing except it was that society was soft on criminals because they only hung them and if they were flogged to death the crime rate would go way down.
      Truth is you get a high crime rate from poor desperate people. Criminals are usually criminals from compulsive behaviour or because they don't belief they'll get caught so the threat of punishment doesn't help.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  4. Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough said.

  5. Beat them don't teach them! by gatfirls · · Score: 5, Informative

    "We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas. "

    1. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      "We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas. "

      Why stop there? Let's roll out capital punishment. Build a few concentration camps and frog march those who dare to think or teach others to.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by thesandtiger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about letting teachers beat parents instead? It might actually be more effective.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    3. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1
      Why would that be required? Aren't the good people of Texas able to discipline their children such that they don't disrupt schools? /snark

      This comes across as a standard GOP platform-plank.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    4. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Texas, so why not just shoot 'em! Stand yer ground baby!

    5. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by geekoid · · Score: 0, Troll

      Corpora punishment isn't effective any where.

      Unless you goal is to create a fearful child who will be afraid to speak.

      Texas keep threatening to leave, but fuck, there still part of the states.

      Bunch of lying cowards.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by gatfirls · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmm you may be onto something. Funny, how doing so would be considered a violent crime while doing it to a developing child is a-ok.

    7. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the best troll post ever. You sir, just made my day complete.

    8. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      "UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child ---
      We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."
      Even Iran implements it.

      Mildly related, you probably read this a few days ago: http://mg.co.za/article/2012-06-28-germanys-muslim-jewish-leaders-team-up-to-fight-circumcision-ruling

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    9. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by KhabaLox · · Score: 2

      "We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas. "

      Note that this is almost directly in contradiction to their other stated belief:

      Juvenile Daytime Curfew - We strongly oppose Juvenile Daytime Curfews. Additionally, we oppose any official entity from detaining, questioning and/or disciplining our children without the consent of a child’s parent.

      The "American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty" part is also somewhat at odds with their notion of parental rights always trumping the state's.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    10. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      It's crap like this that makes me personally wish we could get rid of the DOE and privatize all schools with vouchers. It is complete BS that people have to put up with public education rather than have a choice of where they can send their kids. If they want some religious nut job school then send them to what ever anti-evolution school they want to send them to. If I want to send my kids to a school that actually thinks for them selves and not some spoon feed crap from the Government then I want to be able to do just that.

      Vouchers are the only legitimate way to fund schools with tax dollars. Anything less is nothing more than a legal entity to funnel money to bureaucrats in the name of "the public good."

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    11. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Hmm you may be onto something. Funny, how doing so would be considered a violent crime while doing it to a developing child is a-ok.

      That's what we do to groups who can't vote, they don't get a say in what's legal or not so they get screwed.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    12. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by KhabaLox · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is unpatriotic not to consent to state workers detaining and disciplining your child?

      No. Their support of corporal punishment shows that they support the State in physically disciplining children, which may be against the parents wishes and/or beliefs. Then, in the Juvenile Daytime Curfew clause they say they oppose "any official entity from . . . disciplining our children without . . . consent." It is either hypocritical or just plain stupid.

      Other language in the document implies that they favor parental rights over State rights (except for the corporal punishment). Then, in the Patriotism clause, they say that all students should swear fealty to both the United States and Texas. They don't specifically say that legal resident non-citizen children should be exempt from this, and it's possible that some Republican's may believe as much, but it is conspicuously absent. Furthermore, as a non-native Texan (who lived in Texas for several years), I'm not sure I would want my child to have to pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, and even if I did, I think that given the rest of the language in the document, I find the idea of the State compelling such a pledge somewhat (but not totally) incongruous.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    13. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How does it feel to be a group of raging, fringe loonies?"

      As a fellow Anonymous Coward, you already know the answer to that question.

    14. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Now that is reality tv i can get into.

    15. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Texas keep threatening to leave, but fuck, there still part of the states.

      Bunch of lying cowards.

      Heck, Perry even tried running for president. Of the US.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    16. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It's crap like this that makes me personally wish we could get rid of the DOE and privatize all schools with vouchers. It is complete BS that people have to put up with public education rather than have a choice of where they can send their kids. If they want some religious nut job school then send them to what ever anti-evolution school they want to send them to. If I want to send my kids to a school that actually thinks for them selves and not some spoon feed crap from the Government then I want to be able to do just that.

      Vouchers are the only legitimate way to fund schools with tax dollars. Anything less is nothing more than a legal entity to funnel money to bureaucrats in the name of "the public good."

      You're quite and entirely incorrect. It's crap like this that leads to supposedly fictional states like those described in 1984.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    17. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by AdamStarks · · Score: 1

      Signing on another adult's behalf (ie contracts) or restricting access to their property (ie grounding) is also illegal. But that doesn't apply to kids.

      Not saying I approve of beating kids, just that that's the wrong approach for explaining why.

    18. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is. It may not be an advocacy of children voting but it shows that those without a voice will ultimately be abused figuratively or literally in this case. "Think about the children" only happens in the context of what is popular to the voting parents, not the children.

    19. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      You said Iran implements the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child. Do they actually implement the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child or did they just agree to it and never follow through?

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    20. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking idiot you are.

    21. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by residieu · · Score: 1

      Leave sex-ed to the parents (so they can ignore it), but leave discipline to the schools!

    22. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see it as either hypocritical or stupid.
      The idea is that a parent can, but not necessarily has to, consent to school officials dealing out corporal punishment.
      Per the law, officers are not supposed to interrogate children without their parent's consent, or at least their presence. The pamphlet apparently wants this principle to apply to random stops on the street as well as formal interrogations.
      The key is that the parents get to decide what punishments other authorities are allowed to mete out to their children.

    23. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that Texas' corporal punishment law is opt-out. Texas' view is that they have the right to physically discipline a child unless the parents opt-out.

      Best reference I could find is : http://www.texasisd.com/article_120055.shtml

    24. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, how doing so would be considered a violent crime while doing it to a developing child is a-ok.

      I'm not sure I understand why opponents of corporal punishment in schools assume that spanking a kid is akin to beating him senseless. How many of us got beat half senseless when we were spanked by our parents...okay, well some of us were, when the parents in question didn't understand the difference between corporal discipline and giving a beating. There IS a difference, though, but the parent (or in this case, the school administrator) need to understand better where the boundary lies, and what the goal of corporate punishment. The goal is not to cow the kid by threat of brute violence, but to communicate in no uncertain terms that there are limits that can't be crossed. Some kids probably don't need corporal punishment to get the message, some kids do. Generations of parents did it without necessarily emotionally scarring the rising generation. It only becomes a real problem when a parent or school administrator does out of uncontrolled anger.

    25. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by suutar · · Score: 1

      It is Texas. "He needed an asskicking" might fly as a defense.

    26. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, any fucking idiot who can convince parents they have a school should get free monies. Wouldn't it be just grand if there was no common educational basis at all while still funneling money to bureaucrats (yes, private companies employ them, run for the hills).

    27. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Occams · · Score: 1

      It must be really tough to teach kids who know how to think, if you are as dumb ass a horse's ass yourself. We all suspected that texas' lawmakers are ignorant and stupid, but did they have to go and prove it so thoroughly.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    28. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Note that the UNCRC doesn't actually forbid corporeal punishment of children....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    29. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.

      Yes, I was beat in the second grade because I was creative. That was effective in getting my parents to pull me from the public school system and put me in private schools until they couldn't afford it anymore (and it was too expensive because the private school charged more for me because I was a "problem" child because I was getting bullied, so no love for private schools here either, they targeted the bullied child to be pushed out of the system, blaming the victim, must be Republicans).

      And in violation of their own written policies, my family was never notified. The teacher claimed she sent a letter home that I lost, but that was a lie to cover up her error. Beating children is never a good thing. And, from my personal experience, it gets used for things like beating a child for being too creative.

      This happened at John J. Pershing Elementary in Dallas, TX in about 1980 (it was October of my 2nd grade year, but I don't remember what exact year that translates to).

    30. Re:Beat them don't teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull$hit the kids need the beat down's not the parent's sure its there responsibility! But where do you think they learn this filth? School my friend school! I didn't start cussing until after the 6th grade! But kids today are to smart and boy do they have a vulgar tongue! Heck worse then my generation! we learned respect kids today don't have any of it! I mean haven't they ever heard of "Respect Your Elder's!" No!

  6. Gov't for you by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's just one more reason (as if more were needed) that government shouldn't be allowed in business, education, health care, money, etc., oh well, eventually the society will be so dumb, it wouldn't care about anything but their daily bowl of cheese grits or whatever they eat and a 12 hours of American Football on all channels daily. Eventually... oh wait.

    1. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, think maybe next time you could come up with a rant without coming off as a whiny 12-year-old goth kid? Grrr do I hate sports! Hate hate hate football! RRRRRRRRRR I'm more intelligenter than those stupid football-lovers because I'm not a stupid football-lover!

    2. Re:Gov't for you by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Relax, I don't have anything specific against football or any other sport for that matter, it's not about football, it's about daily cheese and the sports arena intake that satisfies the primal instincts absent of capacity for higher mental faculties. I should have added porn to it, of-course, and there are different types of porn.

    3. Re:Gov't for you by geekoid · · Score: 0
      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Gov't for you by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The failure on your part to understand that the Romans only became as wealthy as they did because they allowed ... free trade. That's right, they had the most freedom in trade than anybody ever had before them, and that's what they derived all of their wealth from, which they stole from the private sector to grow an unsustainable government eventually. Does it remind you of anything?

      Of-course a few thousand years from now, a similar clip will be made about USA.

      What is it that USA ever did for us?

      You know, except the production line used in car manufacturing, the airplane, the refrigerator, the sewing machine, the telegraph, the electrical grid.

      Well, surely they'll include the Internet and the Bomb as fine examples of something that is a bit closer related to the research done by actual government, of-course all for war.

      So no, it's not a response that is appropriate, it's a sad one, because it should point you at the exact problem and yet you think you have something that is helping your argument.

    5. Re:Gov't for you by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The failure on your part to understand that the Romans only became as wealthy as they did because they allowed ... free trade.

      In the reality that the rest of us live in, the Romans became filthy rich when they conquered the rich civilized nations of the eastern Mediterranean.

      That influx of ill-gotten gain played a key role in the downfall of the Republic. (Private armies aren't cheap.)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Gov't for you by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      I understand your confusion, you have been taught that and you believe that an empire can be successful by stealing from others, this is consistent with your believe that in the capitalism 'rich steal from the poor', none of it makes any sense, but I understand your believe structure, which is what you have been taught. You should try and research this subject a bit.

    7. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right. All the colonial empires of history did subjugate the heathens only to bring christianity and civilization. It cost them only money, never brought any gain. Totally true.

      Maybe you should read more about Spain, England and nowadays US history, and yes, roman history too before making such claims.

    8. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Romans weren't capitalists. They were the most powerful empire to ever exist. Cut out the anachronistic bullshit. They weren't capitalists by any means. Quite a few centuries off. And it sure as hell wasn't the government stealing from the private sector. They were one and the same, after all. The aristocrats who controlled the senate, and later the imperial throne were the private sector. They owned the land. They controlled the legions. They controlled the administration of the empire. They just paid out grain and funded public spectacles to keep the local plebians from rising up. The empire was there to serve Rome. If the grain ships didn't come in from Egypt, the legions did something about it. They conquered or destroyed their opposition. These are the people who salted the ground of Carthage to prevent crops from ever growing there again.

      Go research the subject yourself. The Romans were the masters of stealing. They make us look like little children by comparison. They raided the known world for the resources they wanted. Apparently you believe that the Roman Empire was a free-trade utopia. It was a playground for the rich who ruined the lives of their own people by flooding Rome with cheap goods ripped from throughout the empire -- hence the Roman welfare state, since the peasant farmers were completely driven out of business by large landowners and foreign imports. (Not to mention to crap that went on in the provinces)

      I do agree with you that the US is very much like the Roman empire. And we become more like them everyday. It's not because we lack a free market, but because our market allows too much. Namely, infinite mergers, with wealth/power moving into fewer and fewer pots. Small businesses dying, small farmers going out of business, and suddenly too many people and not enough stuff for them all to do. A welfare state is the end result of unrestricted free-markets. It is inevitable. That is what happened to the Romans. (although not a free market, there are similarities as you note, since the folks in power politically were in power economically and militarily and could, therefore, do whatever the hell they wanted) To preserve our way of life, out market needs to be a fair. (And anyway, equating "free" and "laissez-faire" is inherently stupid -- for example, our "freedoms" are protected by our laws, not a laissez-faire system. I'm a free software guy. Free software is only free due to the use of law. The public domain would be inherently "non-free" as derivative works could then be used to destroy my rights)

      You seem to want to emulate the Romans. Rather we should learn the lessons they provided. When a small collective (Rome) gathers too much power over everyone else, they take advantage of said power. By doing so, the lives of their people are temporarily improved. In the long run, however, cheap foreign crap kills the local economy. Welfare state takes over. Fewer and fewer members of aristocratic families rise up and monopolize all the positions of power. System falls apart completely under the weight of corruption. We aren't that far from there. The Romans got there by doing what they wanted. To prevent us from going down that path, we must do what is right for our people rather than what each individual wants. (as that inevitably leads to tyranny as some individuals become more equal than others)

      I too want a "free market" just not a "laissez-faire market."

    9. Re:Gov't for you by arose · · Score: 1

      Free trade as in, free to be captured and sold as a slave?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    10. Re:Gov't for you by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      The comparison between the USA of now and the Roman Empire is even more apt than you imagine: before Rome conquered the cities in Italy, income disparity was much smaller and there was a thriving middle class. After the Roman conquests, the great majority of people were driven into poverty and a small and extremely rich elite formed.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    11. Re:Gov't for you by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I know that, but I know the reasons as well - inflation. They were coin clipping (their version of money printing), diluting the value of precious metals in coins with base metals, they were counterfeiting and thus savings and investments were leaving, while the Republic became a democracy, and relied on gov't to 'redistribute wealth' to get their daily share of free bread and circuses.

    12. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... shouldn't be allowed in business, education, health-care ...

      The government interferes with business? I think it is a rare day when a business is punished.

      People are educated precisely because the government interferes. Ditto health-care. You may think government is ineffective, but any infra-structure is better than none.

      I agree with the money aspect; they should keep out of my wallet. But even if the IRS is reduced to a simple 'spending' tax, the issue of transfers remains. How many bombs, how many teachers does the government buy? And there will always be some bureaucrat hiring contractors at six times the casual salary so he can claim 'small government'.

    13. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the Roman Republic started falling apart once it had no more new fronteirs to conquer, because that's when the armies and generals weren't occupied far away from Rome, and helped overthrow things, right?

    14. Re:Gov't for you by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

      Having read Gibbon, I must say that I disagree with you. The Roman military was the basis of Roman wealth. The Romans knew this, and that gave the military the ability to hold the Senate and the Emperor hostage if they didn't like what was going on. Because the Romans saw the army as the source of their riches, the army felt entitled to push everybody else around. You can see this in the practice of newly-acceded Emperors giving a large "donative" to the armies. Every time the army wanted a big payoff, all they had to do was assassinate the current Emperor. What does this have to do with your analogy regarding free trade and empire? Nothing! Your analogy is inapt.

    15. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, no need to knock grits and football.

    16. Re:Gov't for you by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yeaaah, no need, I am not doing it either. I am not knocking grits and football, I am not knocking bread and circuses, it's the consumers of these, who are also supposedly 'informed voters', they make me vomit.

    17. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't happen to be a legislator from Texas, would you?

    18. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think he is stating that such theft works great, until there isn't anything more to steal and then it collapses because the entire system was built on it.

      He did close with a statement about how this mentality led to the downfall; he's not saying it works as a long term strategy. It does, however, obviously work in the short term.

    19. Re:Gov't for you by PuckSR · · Score: 1

      I think it is important to point out that any analog between the modern USA and the Romans is flimsy at best. These two empires were entirely different in almost every imaginable way. They emerged at different rates, built their empires by different methods, had different social values, and were different in just about every way imaginable. The idea that parallels can be drawn between societies of the past fell out of fashion long ago, and unless you subscribe to the ideas of Arnold Toynbee I doubt you will find much traction with modern scholars.

      Rome was a complex empire, and claiming that it's success or its failure can be linked to a single trait is ridiculous. Claiming that we should emulate that single trait is equally ridiculous. It is just an illusion to attempt to lend some historical significance to an OPINION that someone holds. Let us try to play this game a bit....

      Rome had very free trade. Rome was economically very successful. Free Trade makes a country very successful.
      Rome had slavery. Rome was economically very successful. Slavery makes a country very successful.
      Rome had legal prostitution. Rome was economically very successful. Legal prostitution makes a country very successful.
      Rome adopted Christianity right before the empire began to crumble. Christianity is bad for empires.

      Macedonia(of Alexander the Great fame) was a state-controlled economy where the king controlled and owned almost everything. It was one of the most powerful empires and at one point the most powerful empire in the world because of its concentration of power with the king. Therefore we should follow their example and appoint a young and powerful king. This will give us the best of all possible empires. Thanks to this short exploration of history, we will now have the following country:
      Free-trade
      State-owned industry
      Legal prostitution and slavery
      A ban on Christianity
      And a king(though he will be trained by the greatest philosophers)

    20. Re:Gov't for you by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Except perhaps for the bit about every single bit of grain farmed in Egypt got shipped to Rome and distributed to the public for free.

      Other than that, a paragon of market freedom!

    21. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The failure on your part to understand that the Romans only became as wealthy as they did because they allowed ... free trade. That's right, they had the most freedom in trade than anybody ever had before them, and that's what they derived all of their wealth from, which they stole from the private sector to grow an unsustainable government eventually.

      [citation needed]

      I understand your confusion, you have been taught that and you believe that an empire can be successful by stealing from others, this is consistent with your believe that in the capitalism 'rich steal from the poor', none of it makes any sense, but I understand your believe structure, which is what you have been taught. You should try and research this subject a bit.

      Maybe if you provided some useful references instead of appearing to pull shit out of your ass you would enlighten some people. However, what you stated is an opinion not backed up by known facts. Black Parrot (here's irony) simply parroted his education, which at least is supported by what was generally known when that education was developed. Note that I'm not saying you did pull shit out of your ass, but without sources or even a single link, it sure looks that way.

    22. Re:Gov't for you by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Dude, you are stooopid. Go away and masturbate on pictures of gold.

      Rome experienced essentially no inflation in the modern sense. The collapse of small farmers was caused by the influx of cheap slave labor making large-scale slave farming more competitive and by tax policies favoring the very rich.

    23. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, think maybe next time you could come up with a rant without coming off as a whiny 12-year-old goth kid? Grrr do I hate sports! Hate hate hate football! RRRRRRRRRR I'm more intelligenter than those stupid football-lovers because I'm not a stupid football-lover!

      Back in the 1970s and early 1980's there was this rejoinder going about to explain the dumb and athletic vs. smart and scrawny stereotype: [weight benched] + [IQ] = a constant. Then some jocks became engineers and attorneys and blew that theory out of the sky. That theory needed a little more tweaking: WHITES ONLY.

    24. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I don't know if the only way an empire can become rich is by stealing. All I know is that is how it has worked in the past. For all I know, tomorrow an empire may rise that impoverishes its home base to enrich the places it conquers, instead of requiring levies. Could happen

    25. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just one more reason (as if more were needed) why roman_mir should be encouraged to post on /. all day long, where he can only echo around and not do any real damage (I know it's annoying folks, but at least the only people he can convince here are other True Believers).

    26. Re:Gov't for you by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You are a dumbass, talking about 'collapse' due to higher competition, idiot.

      As to Rome - inflation was rampant as the government grew and stole money by coin clipping.

    27. Re:Gov't for you by Occams · · Score: 1

      I think it is an indication of how we need more federal government intervention in education because the states cannot be trusted to follow adequate standards.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    28. Re:Gov't for you by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So you want only one place where bad decisions will be made, not 50 places, with competition among each other? AFAIC there shouldn't be public education period.

    29. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want only one place where bad decisions will be made, not 50 places, with competition among each other?

      Could you possibly be any less consistent? The other day you argued against states' rights to make their own decisions. Now you want them to make decisions for themselves again? I thought your lord ron paul was supposed to teach you how to hold to a single coherent plan. If so, someone failed.

    30. Re:Gov't for you by pugugly · · Score: 1

      "Have been taught" here meaning "Have foolishly listened to the historical consensus rather than being the independent thinker I am"

      Interestingly enough "Independent Thinker" here means "Person that determinedly ignores the reams of science and historical evidence", so I suppose it all goes round.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    31. Re:Gov't for you by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Why? Small Roman farmers were slowly outcompeted by large landowners. That prepared the Roman Empire for the coming feudal ages.

      The Roman coinage inflated from 4.5 grams of silver per denarium during the Republic era to 3.8 grams during the Nero's reign. That's about 0.0005% of yearly inflation. I.e. essentially nothing. The natural influx of precious metals from mining was several magnitudes bigger. And by the time of Nero the collapse of independent farmers was well under way.

    32. Re:Gov't for you by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Why? Small Roman farmers were slowly outcompeted by large landowners. That prepared the Roman Empire for the coming feudal ages.

      The Roman coinage inflated from 4.5 grams of silver per denarium during the Republic era to 3.8 grams during the Nero's reign. That's about 0.0005% of yearly inflation. I.e. essentially nothing. The natural influx of precious metals from mining was several magnitudes bigger. And by the time of Nero the collapse of independent farmers was well under way.

      Correct! All of it.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    33. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News at 11 "Libertarian idiot sacrifices his all life in preaching libertarianism to infidels".

    34. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how the roman empire collapsed when there was nothing left to conquer.

    35. Re:Gov't for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back at you. Every first world country in history developed as a combination of mercantilism, capitalism, and public ownership. Those that tried capitalism by itself without any protectionism or socialism mixed in remained third world. Every single case.

  7. it's easier to think what someone telks you to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sometimes when faced with problems that are confusing and troubling it is easier to think what someone tells you to think, particularly something that touches a deep and dark nerve in your nature, rather than carry the burden and ambiguity of struggling with the facts and thinking for yourself. Repeating a party line is a shorthand way of avoiding real thought. And the predators are always there to take advantage of it. They welcome trouble and often foment crisis in order to advance their agendas.”

    “Anyone can be misled by a clever person, and no one likes to readily admit that they have been had. It is a sign of character and maturity to realize this, and admit you were deceived, and to demand change and reform. But some people cannot do this, even when the facts of the deception are revealed. It seems as though the more incorrect that the truth shows them to be, the louder and more strident they become in shouting down and denying the reality of the situation. And anyone who denies their perspective becomes 'the other,' someone to be feared and hated, shunned and eliminated, one way or the other.”

    This was cited here http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article35340.html from another website...

  8. Totally understandable. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With republicans (and a number of conservatives).
    War is Peace.
    freedom is not liberty.
    and most of all.
    Ignorance is strength.

    As it is, critical thinking skills is reserved for top party members or the executives that work in the companies that the party supports.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Totally understandable. by CajunArson · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fascinating that you distort 1984 there, but let me tell you what this is really about:
      For liberals: "Higher Order Thinking Skills" is "Democrats Good! Republicans Bad! The Federal Government is our new God and our very survival depends solely on handouts we receive for being compliant tools! Independent thought is the racist war on women!"

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    2. Re:Totally understandable. by countach74 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, very few on here get what you're on about. Everyone's too caught up in "Democrats Good! Republicans Bad!" or the equally worthless vice versa. It seems most are still being manipulated by thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

    3. Re:Totally understandable. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not a troll; the poster speaks the raw truth. hard to swallow if you are on the other side, but it really is true.

      current republicans are the poster children of doublespeak.

      clinging to 2000 year old mythology does not help their case, either. its part of the problem, in fact.

      modern man needs to pull himself out of this religious stupor. the more you try to keep this myth and 'us vs them' mentality going, the more you set us all, collectively, back.

      the word 'progress' is in progressive. note that progressive movement is 100% opposite of the current republican and so-called conservative movements. some of us want to move forward while quite a lot of americans are hell-bent (heh) on keeping us back in the middle ages.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Totally understandable. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not really. I used to like the republican party back in the 70's. Once reagan took it over, the neo-cons, the religious right wing nuts, and now the tea* have taken control. At this time, the republican party is less about what is good for America, and more of a communist ideal: We will tell the nation, if not the world, what is in everybodies best interest. The party screams about the deficits (like dems and pubs did since the pubs crashed America in the great depression), yet, they account for 2/3 of our debt. Worse, they are the ones that created the situation for most of the other 1/3.

      All in all, the republican party is now controlled by social conservatives with a strong religious bent, no fiscal sense of ANY KIND, and with a bent that has more in common with Al Qaeda and the Communist Party, then with what the republican party was pre-reagan..

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Totally understandable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it's not:

      For Conservatives: The proper way of thinking is "Republicans (and Conservatives) Good! Democrats Bad! The Federal Government is the most evil entity on earth and must be stopped from using its abilities to prevent us from telling women how they can have abortions as we like(and how dare they protest that we're somehow defending people's religious liberties to oppress others!), not shooting innocent minorities in the streets (You know all those minorities are trouble, and thugs, and better to shoot him now than let him grow up!) and not making war on any filthy heathens we want!(Seriously, they are so upset that we're not invading Egypt and Syria and Iran to put a government in place that will do what we want)"

      I've read the comments on my local paper's forums. They scare me.

      Unless those people are very sophisticated false-flag agents, they're just crude and vulgar trolls who mindlessly repeat whatever talking points they believe they are supposed to espouse and dogmatically hate Democrats and Liberals without even the slightest thought otherwise. Many of them do nothing but engage in insult tactics without even the slightest attempt to discuss anything and the only posts they do make related to a topic are cheering each other on.

      I actually think the genuine conservatives have left out of shame. Maybe that was the intent. I have been convinced that if these people are representative of Republicans and Conservatives I know I want nothing to do with them. Then again I feel the same about the right-wing leaning editorial page. I've spotted way too many genuine falsehoods in their posts to believe otherwise.

      That might be due to more vigilance on my part, but not entirely. And while there are a few questionable pseudo-liberals, no, nowhere near the same quality.

    6. Re:Totally understandable. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It's that Fox News thing again. Tell me again which party ramrodded everything they voted on without a single veto and virtually no dissenting vote when they were in the super majority? Which party couldn't agree on a bill supporting their major plank when they held the majority? And then which party emphatically votes "no" on anything the other party proposes? (See - I'm not telling you what it's about - I'm asking questions. A key distinction between Republicans and those that have critical thinking ability) I doubt you'd realize you brought 1984 into being, since you'd be the first to sign up for the enforcement arm in the Ministry of Truth.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:Totally understandable. by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course. If one is able to embrace the nonsense of religion, any other lie is second nature.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:Totally understandable. by Patch86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For some reason every time we teach someone how to think critically and properly evaluate ideas on their merit, they vote for the other party's policies! It's a flipping mystery. Must be some sort of propaganda!

      Must be the same reason why that no-good "intellectual elite" are always voting for left-wing policies. If only we could find some sort of correlation...

    9. Re:Totally understandable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How ironic that you should condemn them for orwellian language in regards to their opposition to a program that uses orwellian language to dupe people like yourself into favoring it without even reading a damn thing:

      "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (valuesclarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-BasedEducation (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"

      Google outcome-based education. It has nothing to do with critical thinking teaching whatsoever. It is merely its own more recent brand of brainwashing method for public schools.

    10. Re:Totally understandable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the word 'progress' is in progressive. note that progressive movement is 100% opposite of the current republican and so-called conservative movements. some of us want to move forward while quite a lot of americans are hell-bent (heh) on keeping us back in the middle ages.

      if 'progress' is progressive, what is 'congress'?

    11. Re:Totally understandable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. The funny part is, that you think the dems are any different, and that any of them are in any way relevant to the country. They are puppets. Decoration. Distractions. And retards like you *still* fall for them.

    12. Re:Totally understandable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you honestly think that religion is full of nonsense that only nitwits and the weak-minded can sign on to, then you may not have read theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine, much less Christian thinkers and scientists like Sir Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal, all of whom intellectually could run circles around the Texas GOP types. To embrace a religious world-view is entirely rational, even though it requires leaps of faith. That said, what the Texas GOP people are doing is something entirely different: covering their ignorance, unsophistication and intolerance with the cloak of manmade religion that has the appearance of Christianity, but lacks the substance of it. So, please don't take the embarrassing public pronouncements of these nudnicks and country rubes (much less their political orientation) as representative of religious people as a whole. It most certainly is NOT so!

    13. Re:Totally understandable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, particularly that guy that did the "It's a tax" / "It's not a tax" dance over and over for the last two years.

      Grow up.

    14. Re:Totally understandable. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "even though it requires leaps of faith"

      That just made it irrational.

      The ancient thinkers you cite had very little information to work with and lived in a time when superstition was unquestioned.

      PROVE your Sky Fairie exists, here, now, and I'll recant and kiss his/her/it's Noodly Appendage.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    15. Re:Totally understandable. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The really funny thing is that I am a Libertarian, that has to deal with idiot neo-cons like yourself. It is really too bad since your kind is destroying my nation.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re:Totally understandable. by pugugly · · Score: 1

      That's one of those oddly comfortable myths I have to admit I rather fell into before I got into actually studying politics.

      As nearly as I can tell the GOP has (at least since the 1880's) consistently been a group of reactionaries that put forward a few socially acceptable charmers as the face of the party. The interesting part is -- everyone *always* thinks the GOP was fine 20-30 years ago, but only today are they a bit loony.

      I think it's because it's always perceived that in the old days they had a few loonies that the public face dealt with because they needed support, but were basically okay. But it's always been a public minority supported by conspiracy theorists and reactionaries. In a generation the Tea Party will only be remembered as a minor element, and the 'old Republicans' will be remembered as perfectly sane and reasonable - just Today's Republicans of 2065 . . . These people are nuts!

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    17. Re:Totally understandable. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If the government buys (nationalizes) all the corporations, does that make the government communist? Most say "yes".

      If the corporations buy the government to the same effect, does that make the government communist?

    18. Re:Totally understandable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the republican party is less about what is good for America, and more of a communist ideal:

      the republican party is less about what is good for America, and more of a fascist ideal:

      there fixed that for ya. What we have today is not communism but fascism. Communism is based on "The People" where fascism is based on military and corporate control. Look them up.

      All in all, the republican party is now controlled by social conservatives with a strong religious bent, no fiscal sense of ANY KIND, and with a bent that has more in common with Al Qaeda and the Communist Party, then with what the republican party was pre-reagan..

      Also more dangerous than Al Qaeda and the Communist Party

    19. Re:Totally understandable. by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Actually, these ideas stem from the second great Awakening around 1800, not from true Christian beliefs. And not fiscal conservative beliefs.

  9. Stupid Republicans Move to Lower Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I knew that Republicans were basically stupid but I didn't realize they bred themselves that way. How long has this been going on? How stupid do they want to become? It would seem that mindless automaton endlessly saying Jesus loves me is the goal.

    1. Re:Stupid Republicans Move to Lower Intelligence by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      I knew that Republicans were basically stupid but I didn't realize they bred themselves that way.

      They don't breed *themselves* that way. This is for "hoi polloi", the people John Steward Mill was talking about, whom the Republicans exploit by making their knees jerk so that they can get enough votes to run the country as a plutocracy.

      And of course, the threat isn't that critical thinking will challenge fixed beliefs and parental authority, but rather that critical thinking will allow educated voters to see through the party's authoritarian bullshit and thus fail to vote against their own best interests.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Stupid Republicans Move to Lower Intelligence by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      I knew that Republicans were basically stupid but I didn't realize they bred themselves that way. How long has this been going on? How stupid do they want to become?

      There's a real interesting documentary on this phenomenon called "Idiotocracy."

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    3. Re:Stupid Republicans Move to Lower Intelligence by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "mindless automaton endlessly saying Jesus loves me is the goal."

      Contemplate religious song and chant.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Stupid Republicans Move to Lower Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans - The Morlock Party.

  10. Critical Thinking by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's that ability to look beyond dogma, hyperbole, straw-man arguments, etc. and make your own decisions. Small wonder anyone in political power would rigorously fight people learning to think for themselves, they may find their beliefs change over time and switch party affiliation or (horrors) become independents - evaluating candidates based upon their ability to get things done, rather than what they like to talk about at campaign events.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Critical Thinking by sco08y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's that ability to look beyond dogma, hyperbole, straw-man arguments, etc. and make your own decisions.

      And, you know, read a paragraph.

      Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

      You lose.

    2. Re:Critical Thinking by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funny that, you didn't highlight the other part of it which is just as much relevant if not more.

      Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

    3. Re:Critical Thinking by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      So how well do schools teach critical thinking, anyways?

      How do you measure how well a schoolkid has been taught critical thinking?

      Do schools really teach critical thinking? I personally didn't develop mine in school activities. (I developed mine in the process of trying to "win" Internet arguments about video games while in college. Go figure.)

    4. Re:Critical Thinking by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      So how well do schools teach critical thinking, anyways?

      How do you measure how well a schoolkid has been taught critical thinking?

      Well, does your kid come home and ask why the sky's blue, or does he say "because God made it blue?"

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Critical Thinking by arose · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Let's try to make that even clearer and remove the specific terms, including the well understood "critical thinking" as the defenders of this particular gem consider them open to redefinition:

      We oppose the teaching of [..] programs [..] have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

      That is what the paragraph says when you cut away the jargon, so let's discuss the substance, not terms.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    6. Re:Critical Thinking by arose · · Score: 1
      Err... Let's try that without the trackpad messing with things:

      We oppose the teaching of [..] programs that [..] have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    7. Re:Critical Thinking by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      Not at all. The paragraph says that they oppose "the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs," because they "are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning)." They oppose this because they feel that the programs "focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      You're cutting out crucial parts of the sentence and ignoring the flow of proposition and justification to make it seem like they object to a subset of programs that specifically aim to achieve a certain objective, when in fact they object to the entire set of programs because they feel that they all aim to achieve a certain objective.

    8. Re:Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "We oppose challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority" follows from "We oppose critical thinking". Critical thinking is the ability to examine and alter beliefs under new evidence.

    9. Re:Critical Thinking by crgrace · · Score: 1

      Funny that, you didn't highlight the most relevant part:

      Knowledge-Based Education : We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

      This is fun.

    10. Re:Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, lets discuss this,
      If no one had EVER challenged parental authority or their own fixed beliefs, where would we be?
      Living in a tree, getting wet when it rained because our parents never used a roof so why should we?
      Fire, it's to be feared because my parents told me that their parents told them (ad infinitum) that it would hurt you.
      Caves...why the evil spirits live in those.

      Any other fixed beliefs that you think we should keep?

    11. Re:Critical Thinking by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Well, does your kid come home and ask why the sky's blue, or does he say "because God made it blue?"

      Are you trying to contrast curiosity with dogma? (You framed it as, "Why blue?" vs. "God made it that way")

      Neither of those perspectives are exclusive of or unique to critical thinking. Not a very good indicator.

      Also note that I'm not asking how to measure if a person is a critical thinker; I'm asking how we measure a school's contribution to a student's development of critical thinking. It's a second derivative of an already hard to quantify quality. (Rate of change of the rate of change in capability to think critically)

    12. Re:Critical Thinking by arose · · Score: 1

      You're cutting out crucial parts of the sentence and ignoring the flow of proposition and justification to make it seem like they object to a subset of programs that specifically aim to achieve a certain objective, when in fact they object to the entire set of programs because they feel that they all aim to achieve a certain objective.

      No, the paragraph as it stands gives the impression that they oppose a certain subset due to having a random enumeration of a series of terms, skills and concepts to a cursory reader, hence people defend it on those grounds. I "tried to imply" that they oppose anything that will challenge student's beliefs, including the beliefs they inherited from their parents, though this "implication" is merely a consequence of cutting all the crap (in regards to its role in the paragraph) that they believe is threatening them in this manner.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    13. Re:Critical Thinking by arose · · Score: 1

      How in the world did you come up with the idea that I actually agree with that shit, I was just trying to cut to the core of the issue as those who do agree seem to be latching onto secondary parts.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    14. Re:Critical Thinking by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Whoever wrote that paragraph failed critical thinking in English........or else is a Perl coder ;-)

    15. Re:Critical Thinking by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I was being a bit flippant, and the hour was late. But yes, critical thinking is in direct contrast to an indoctrinated person's "fixed beliefs".

      The first part of your question is to have a proper framework of questions to ascertain the ability to think critically, and the second part measuring the rate of change thereof should be relatively trivial in comparison.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    16. Re:Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is definitely NOT all that it says.

      Here is the direct quote:
      Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

      This sentence is extremely unclear because you can't tell what the subject of the following two phrases are:
      "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
      AND
      "that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning)"

      I read this as the following sentences:
      1a.) We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification).
      2a.) We oppose the teaching of critical thinking skills.
      3abc.) We oppose the teaching of similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

      So, I read it as a direct rejection of two specific programs (one of which is "critical thinking skills") and one class of programs.

      Furthermore, I read the "which" clause as being an explanatory clause, not a restrictive clause. Thus, it holds no controlling meaning, and can be eliminated without changing the overall meaning. Removing this, the final sentence becomes:

      3abc1.) We oppose the teaching of similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning).

      This leaves three simple objections: HOTS, critical thinking skills, and OBE, along with a non-controlling explanation for the objection.

      You seem to be reading this as:
      1b.) We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
      2b.) We oppose the teaching of critical thinking skills which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
      3abc.) We oppose the teaching of similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

      This seems to also be legitimate. If this meaning is accepted, then only critical thinking skills that focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority are objected to. This is probably the most acceptable meaning if the which used here is meant as a restrictive clause. If the which is considered to be non-restrictive, then 1b, 2b, and 3abc are equivalent to 1a, 2a, and 3abc1.

      The final possibility (espoused later in the thread) is:

      1c.) We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification) that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
      2c.) We oppose the teaching of critical thinking skills that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
      3abc.) We oppose the teaching of similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed b

    17. Re:Critical Thinking by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      I was being a bit flippant, and the hour was late. But yes, critical thinking is in direct contrast to an indoctrinated person's "fixed beliefs".

      You beg the question.

      You believe the students come into school indoctrinated by their parents with unchallenged "fixed beliefs" that the school must un-indoctrinate. One can have fixed beliefs post critical thinking that have stood up to all intellectual challenges and proven their worth. (Consider that "It is a good thing for schools to teach critical thinking" is a fixed belief)

      From the parent's point of view, you're just trying to indoctrinate their kids with a belief system/worldview that you like. Great if that coincides with their own; but infuriating if it's the direct opposite; while they're forced by law (the threat of state violence) to pay for it.

      If the parents are paying for the education, and for feeding/housing the child, have they not earned the right to control how their kids are raised? The question of liberty and gov't limits is an important one.

      The first part of your question is to have a proper framework of questions to ascertain the ability to think critically,

      If your example of "why blue" is any indication, this part is a lot harder than you seem to think it is.

      Do you happen to have proof that the controversial curriculum in question has a good track record for developing critical thinking in students? Or did you just accept the premise that the protesting parents are stupid and backwards uncritically?

    18. Re:Critical Thinking by arose · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, I read the "which" clause as being an explanatory clause, not a restrictive clause. Thus, it holds no controlling meaning, and can be eliminated without changing the overall meaning.

      Of course it becomes complex if you decide that the singular piece that explains which programs are being opposed without playing "guess what we mean by this term", that's why it's there, they couldn't pin it down by stabbing at random terms either, so they needed to explain in plain terms what kind of objectives everything the oppose has in common. The fact that they consider them all to be relabeling of OBE is incidental.

      Besides, grammar is not nearly as strict as you make it out to be and even if it was, it would be of questionable use in analyzing what you admit to be an extremely unclear sentence. Your tools might be useful for composing clear sentences, but they are misplaced understand one that didn't employ the same set.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    19. Re:Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Undermining parental authority is vague and context specific. Anything you teach that the parents disagreed with could be considered undermining their authority.

      Re-writing to exlude this clause which is always true, yields:

      We oppose the teaching of [..] programs [..] have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs

      or, to rephrase,

      We oppose [..] education

  11. Someone needs to show them the /. article on China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The political/business elite in China are specifically sending their children to schools in the USA exactly BECAUSE we teach critical thinking skills. The Chinese education should not be a model for Texas, but they are sure taking the pages out of their book on education in this respect....

  12. Lacking faith in their faith? by high_rolla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They clearly don't have much faith in their faith if they fear that something as simple as thinking would put it in danger.

    --
    Ryans Tutorials - A collection of technology tutorials.
    1. Re:Lacking faith in their faith? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      They clearly don't have much faith in their faith if they fear that something as simple as thinking would put it in danger.

      There's a saying I really enjoyed that went along the lines of: "A church with a lightning rod displays a significant lack of conviction"

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Lacking faith in their faith? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Um, that's kind of wrapped up in the very definition of the word "faith."

    3. Re:Lacking faith in their faith? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Cute saying.

      However, it turns out that lighting is attracted to tall pointy objects. So if your church has pointy steeple or cross on the top, in fact the scientifically sensible thing to do is put a lightning rod above it somewhere.

      Getting struck by lighning every now and then may do wonders for putting the fear of God into parishoners, but after a while it can get kinda expensive.

    4. Re:Lacking faith in their faith? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I think that's quite fair to say. I would go further in saying that much of what you're hearing in the Texas GOP's pronouncements are driven by fear, the mirror opposite of faith.

    5. Re:Lacking faith in their faith? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Don't confound me with that science talk!!!!

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:Lacking faith in their faith? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo Dawg....

    7. Re:Lacking faith in their faith? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point of the quote though; surely God wouldn't want to strike or could stop a lightning strike on church, right? And if he did have reason to strike it, surely a lightening rod would be little challenge for the creator of the universe to deal with? Yeah, the actual scientific reasons for one are quite sound, but what purpose does it serve for the more extreme believers in god?

    8. Re:Lacking faith in their faith? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
      Then he is not omnipotent.
      Is he able, but not willing?
      Then he is malevolent.
      Is he both able and willing?
      Then whence cometh evil?
      Is he neither able nor willing?
      Then why call him God?

      Epicurus, circa 300 BCE

  13. Religious fundamentalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The Texas GOP is just an American taliban in my opinion.

    1. Re:Religious fundamentalism by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it is not. It is NOT the GOP. It is the neo-cons and teapartiers within the GOP that correspond to Taliban.
      The truth is, that many of the pre-reagan GOPers are disgusted by where their party is today.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Religious fundamentalism by hondo77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The truth is, many in the GOP say they are disgusted by the neocons but they don't do anything to discourage or oppose them. Talk is cheap.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    3. Re:Religious fundamentalism by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Then they should change parties and say why.

      That is THE ONLY way they will change. Considering the Democrats are more pre-republican then the current crop of republicans iot's not the much of a leap.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Religious fundamentalism by Nimey · · Score: 0

      What are they going to do about it?

      The national party /is/ the teabaggers and neocons right now, with a dash of Paultards for nutty pseudo-libertarian states-rightsism. Perhaps these putative pre-St. Reagan GOPers should start calling themselves something else, or vote Dem because that party is probably the closest thing to their ideal.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:Religious fundamentalism by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Informative

      The truth is, many in the GOP say they are disgusted by the neocons but they don't do anything to discourage or oppose them. Talk is cheap.

      The fracture in the Republican party is between those who support the views of the "American Taliban" and the traditional plutocrats who merely want to exploit them to get elected. Neither group has any motivation to tell them to fuck off.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Religious fundamentalism by jschrod · · Score: 1
      I'm from Germany, so please excuse my ignorance.

      I haven't read about any GOP head who argued to put the Tea Party nutcases where they belong -- to the scrapheap of history (if they don't understand history, they're condemned to repeat it).

      Could you please document the GOP's resistance and opposition to the Tea Party's extremisc positions?

      As far as I'm concerned, the GOP left the camp of civilized behavior many years ago. Looking from abroad, it's clear that their only aim is to give Haliburton et.al. even more power than they have today.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    7. Re:Religious fundamentalism by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I've seen occasional comments from retired GOP politicians along the lines of "gee, you people are so nuts that St. Reagan-of-the-deficits would be unwelcome in his own party these days". The other day we even got something like that from Roy Blunt, current senator from Missouri.

      Never you mind that Blunt's been part of that very same problem since he was first elected in '94.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Religious fundamentalism by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Could you please document the GOP's resistance and opposition to the Tea Party's extremisc positions?

      Easy. They managed to cram Mitt Romney down our throats didn't they? They f*ck*ng handed Obama a second term on a silver platter rather than allow one of the more electable, but uncontrollable, candidates to get the nomination. Romney can not win. On the other hand Obama is working really hard to lose right now so we could at least get stalemate for four years.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    9. Re:Religious fundamentalism by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

      You misunderstand. The GOP head is currently neo-con controlled. There is a 3-way battle going on within the party. Basically, you have the reagan/W neo-cons who are only interested in their party (hate to use it, but 1930's Germany should sound familiar). They constantly use patriotism to appeal to Americans to follow them. Likewise, they will SAY the right thing, such as promising to balance the budget.. Yet, if you look, reagan inherited a minor deficit/debt and then ran it up massively. W inherited a balanced budget and then destroyed it (and our economy). Under both, they built up the military and sent trillions to their friends. For example, re-doing battleships was worthless. B1 was a disaster. Likewise, DARPA is a useful defense R&D. Basically, it does loads of advanced R&D. Under W, the money was shifted from Cheap University R&D, into expensive Businesses. It is extremely wasteful. At any rate, the neo-cons are about power and making sure that they remain in power.

      The religious right wingers here have a goal of making us into a theocracy. Like the neo-cons, they wrap themselves in the flag, but also the cross. They scream that they are opposed to abortions, but then work hard to deny access to Birth Control. Likewise, if a single girl has a child, then the mother AND the child are punished. These ppl are idealists simply to AQ. You do what they want, or some of them WILL kill you. Pat Roberts comes to mind. Likewise groups like Focus on the Family. Oddly, these kinds of ppl love to scream that God is punishing Gays, etc. and therefore caused Katrina. So, now with Focus on the Family area being massively burned, I am waiting patiently to hear what Robert and FotF will now claim? Perhaps that God hates liars?

      Now, we have the tea party. It is NOT what it looks like. Many will claim that it is Libertarian (which is what I am still registered as, but increasingly, I am 'l' and not as much 'L'), but it really is not. The teaparty has multiple leaders. It was created by the Koch brothers and Rove (yes, the great evil one has his hands all over this one). The problem is, that many of the younger congress is supported and related to it. For example, Cantor is a major tea* member. When Obama and Boehner were close to a deficit deal, cantor came in and killed it. Why? Because it allowed tax cuts to expire, which Cantor is sworn to prevent (google for grover norquist).

      Now, have you noticed the older GOPers leaving office and saying that they can not solve things? That is NOT about the dems. They have and could easily work with dems. They were typically about working on AMERICA's needs. Their problem is that their party REFUSES to work with dems, libertarians, etc. All 3 of these groups have sworn that they will NOT COMPROMISE. Gov. is all about compromise. Without it, well, we have a situation in America.

      Goldwater had many things to say about groups like this
      But probably the best one, would be:
      Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

      At this time, the GOP is a party of some of the worse of America, that is hard at work trying to do the same to America.
      Sadly, the dems are loaded with idiots at the top.
      We desperately need a 3rd party that is composed of social moderates to liberals, but with STRONG fiscal conservative and a strong sense of who are nation is.

      IOW, your assessment of the GOP is pretty much accurate.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re:Religious fundamentalism by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The truth is, that many of the pre-reagan GOPers are disgusted by where their party is today."

      Not enough to keep them from enjoying the rise of the real GOP Evangelical White Trash (rich trash are still trash) to power.

      Inaction is consent is endorsement. Fuck off.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:Religious fundamentalism by couchslug · · Score: 1

      That's not a fracture, that's a love match between Klansmen and Koch Brothers.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    12. Re:Religious fundamentalism by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Have you not noticed the republicans who have retired over the last couple of elections and what they are saying?
      These men and women were hard at work to change their party for the better and have realized that reagan brought in vipers.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:Religious fundamentalism by sick197666 · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, they would all be yours.

      This pretty much lays it out exactly; at least from my point of view of a Democrat - to - Liberal Libertarian convert. (Yes, we exist. No, we don't like big government.)

      I have many coworkers from Europe and when they come to visit - they are somewhat shell shocked. They see America as this pinnacle of light in Democracy and Freedom and Free Enterprise and Equality Under Law.... and I have to give them the truth, as it pains me to see them that ignorant of it.

  14. oppose...critical thinking, undermine...authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? It works for North Korea!

  15. LOL! by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess the GOP is afraid of people able to critically think! They are afraid it would be detrimental to their mission! Heaven forefend should someone be able to use rational thinking to defeat idiocy.

  16. Re:Meanwhile in California by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Really? Where is that at? And please show us an example of that.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  17. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The DNC educational platform is teaching that 2+2==3 is "not wrong" and the kid should be given praise because he tried hard. B for effort.

    Where? The word "wrong" and "praise" aren't in there and I can't find anything close to what you are claiming.

  18. Misleading Summary by myrdos2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The actual quote is:

    Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

    It sounds like "Outcome-Based Education" is that you aren't graded by how many hours you spend learning or working, but by the output you can produce. So they're saying you could use this to brainwash students based on the teacher's political agenda? IE, at the end of the class you will show you understand his views, and why everyone else is wrong. When you put it like that, it doesn't seem so bad...

    Of course, what they're really saying is don't challenge our creationist views with your fancy logic. And that's sad.

    1. Re:Misleading Summary by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Real learning begins when the children leave off what they are fed and begin research of their own, "Why does this work/not work? Where do I find the information." Critical Thinking opens that door.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't fall for the doublespeak.
      As you said critical thinking opens that door, "Higher Order Thinking Skill" (i.e. learn to come to the correct conclusion, i.e. the one the teacher believes in and is heavily hinting at in every sentence) does the opposite.

    3. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and begin research of their own,

      Nothing like that is going to happen in the modern public school system. All time is rigorously scheduled by important people in administration, and while a student can get away with goofing off or not understanding the material, they damn well better not be using that time to learn something else on their own.

    4. Re:Misleading Summary by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Except that what they're arguing about isn't actual critical thinking. It's some program to which people have attached the label "critical thinking" so as to market it better, and stem opposition. Same idea as calling your political policy the "Against People Who Hate America Act" or some such, while its contents are about giving media owners a private police force.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:Misleading Summary by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Informative
      No, Outcome-based education is an educational model that emphasizes testing to show students have achieved the desired "outcome." The debate over OBE boils down to who gets to decide what the desired "outcome" is. Where the /. summary gets deceptive is the when they change the words "have the purpose of" to "may."

      The /. summary (emphasis mine):

      Alarmingly, they openly state that they oppose schools teaching critical thinking, on the grounds that it may challenge 'student's fixed beliefs'

      The PDF you quoted (ellipses and emphasis mine) :

      We oppose the teaching of...programs...which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs

      The Texas GOP does not oppose "critical thinking skills" that may challenge religious beliefs, they oppose things named "critical thinking skills" but are really just a packaged curriculum designed specifically to challenge religious beliefs. Basically all they're saying in this quote is they don't want schools teaching that there is no Jesus. They do not oppose critical thinking skills, just things called critical thinking skills so their opponents can create headlines just such as this.

      This article is an alarmist red herring. Spun back around, it would be like the Texas GOP creating a program called "Fluffy Cuddly Bunnies" that uses Outcome Based Education, and tests students to make sure they've achieved the outcome of professing their faith in Jesus. Then you came along and say, "I oppose this program" they can write articles with the summary "Myrdos2 wants to impose atheism on all students, hates fluffy cuddly bunnies and is so ignorant that he opposes rigorous testing to make sure our kids are learning!"

      Disclaimer: I am an agnostic atheist and not a Republican. But I don't like misleading articles that use linguistic games to make people look like they said things they didn't.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your score of 2. The fanatics have taken over the left-wing ship.

    7. Re:Misleading Summary by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      It sounds like "Outcome-Based Education" is that you aren't graded by how many hours you spend learning or working, but by the output you can produce.

      That much is true.

      So they're saying you could use this to brainwash students based on the teacher's political agenda?

      Well, you could, if the measurable objective standard you set was ability to recite accurately a particular set of propaganda points. But you could do that with traditional education measured by inputs (time, study materials presented) just as well in OBE, you'd just set the material inputs to be, say, Mao's Little Red Book or the Texas Republican Party 2012 platform.

      Both OBE and the approaches it is defined in contrast to are about the mechanisms by which you assess systems of education (and students within them), not what the content is or the goals are. The content and goals come from the outside and, in OBE, would dictate what outcome measures you use.

    8. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck trying to teach any biology without making lesson plans with the purpose of teaching things which *challenge the student’s fixed belief* in genesis.
      Good luck trying to teach any nuclear physics (even the childish cartoon taught at high school level) without writing a lesson plan with the purpose of teaching things which *challenge the student’s fixed beliefs* in the biblical age of the earth.
      Good luck trying to teach the history of America without teaching about the Deist founding fathers and therefore teaching a lesson with the purpose of *challenging the student’s fixed beliefs* in the Christian nature of the constitution.
      etc etc.

      You can not challenge what is being taught on the basis that you do not like it, or nothing would be taught at all, instead only on the basis of it's accuracy is it wrong? or on its affect, does it do damage?

    9. Re:Misleading Summary by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Again, "purpose of" is different than "may."

      Explaining the Big Bang theory and the process by which cosmologists developed the theory may make kids question Jesus, but the curriculum is not designed specifically to do so unless the teacher says "now kids, we know the bible is full of shit because Edwin Hubble noticed galaxies moving away from each other..."

      Science and religion are not completely incompatible (yet). For instance, the Catholic church accepts the Big Bang and evolution as tools of God's creation and considers Genesis to be an allegorical tale. It is possible to teach science without opposing religion. That's actually how it should be taughtreligion just shouldn't be mentioned at all.

      I'm an atheist, and I don't want the schools teaching my kid that there is a god. The actual statement from the GOP reads that they don't want schools teaching that there isn't a god. Seems to me like we can all be in agreement by justnot having discussions of god (pro or con) in schools. Instead, the article goes alarmist by twisting "don't teach that there is no god" to "we oppose all critical thinking skills because they might make kids doubt jesus." It's just not what they said.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:Misleading Summary by Tancred · · Score: 1

      The Texas GOP does not oppose "critical thinking skills"

      Then why don't they state that they approve of teaching critical thinking skills and simply call out some parts of a curriculum as not really critical thinking? If I find that someone's teaching 2+2=5, I wouldn't call for an end of teaching mathematics.

    11. Re:Misleading Summary by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      That's exactly what they did. They're opposed to "critical thinking skills" programs that are "simply a relabeling" of a system that aims to be anti-religion. The summary left out the rest of the sentence so it looks like they're opposed to critical thinking skills in general because of a potential threat that they might make kids question jesus, when in fact they're opposed to a specific program sold as "critical thinking skills" (mislabeled in the opinion of the TGOP) that are specifically designed to turn kids off jesus.

      For instance, in response to seeing someone teach "2+2=5" and calling it "basic mathematics," you might say "I'm opposed to the teaching of 'basic mathematics' that purports that 2+2=5!" I could then respond "look at this fool Tancred, who says he is 'opposed to the teaching of basic mathematics!'" That's the sort of mischaracterization and misquotation that the /. summary did to the Texas GOP source.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Misleading Summary by jfengel · · Score: 2

      Instead, the article goes alarmist by twisting "don't teach that there is no god" to "we oppose all critical thinking skills because they might make kids doubt jesus."

      Without having RTFA... does the program really "teach that there is no god"? I, too, would oppose such a program, but I honestly can't imagine that is the program they're talking about. It sounds an awful lot like a program the Republicans would imagine.

      I, too, oppose linguistic games that twist people's words. But it sounds an awful lot to me like that's what the Republicans are doing. (Which doesn't mean that the article isn't also doing the same thing. I won't go so far as to say that turnabout is fair play, but it's a game the creationists seem to play a lot and I don't mind them getting a taste of their own medicine.)

    13. Re:Misleading Summary by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It is possible to teach science without opposing SOME religions. Other religions, mostly the ones that feel threatened by education, are pretty incompatible with science.

    14. Re:Misleading Summary by arose · · Score: 1

      They are not opposing programs "which have the purpose of undermining the student's fixed beliefs", neither are they opposing programs "which have the purpose of changing the student's fixed beliefs", no they oppose mere challenging, you can't have a critical thinking program that doesn't address your potential biases.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    15. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but are really just a packaged curriculum designed specifically to challenge religious beliefs

      I am going to have to call you out on this. How does this work? Do you honestly and sincerely believe that public schools have a curriculum constructed for the purpose of indoctrinating students to believe "there is no Jesus"? This sounds like Glenn Beck-esque alarmist hyperbole and is in direct conflict with my own experience. I'd want to hear some actual evidence for this Christ-obliterating conspiracy which hides itself under the moniker of "critical thinking skills" before I take your word for it.

      > "We oppose the teaching of...programs...which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs"

      The value of critical thinking is discovering and solving new or unexpected problems raised by what you've learned or experienced. In the context of this PDF, the author's primary concern is about the student's "fixed beliefs". Its purpose is also entirely unambiguous: do not question the authority of Christian religious institutions, or by extension the neoconservative agenda that it supports. There is nothing in this statement which suggests that they really, actually do want critical thinking to occur-- and the use of the phrase "behavior modification" should give you a sudden and keen insight into what these individuals think of different ideas.

    16. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been demonstrated that education in critical thinking skills reduces susceptibility to religious belief. No indoctrination in a particular opposing/alternative creed is needed. Secularization arises from education in multiple points of view and critical analysis. This is why Republicans, and particularly their Bible-thumping wing, reflexively surpress any hint of challenging 'student's fixed beliefs'. They view it as a direct attack against one of their core constituencies, and in a sense it is. It's also something the world needs more of.

    17. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really alarmist. The burden is on the Texas GOP to clarify their position if what you say is accurate. They have explicitly stated they are opposed to the teaching of critical thinking skills.

      The argument you have is that this is meant to be qualified by the mention of OBE as a tool to undermine parental authority, behavioral modification, and the challenging student's own beliefs. In other words, you're claiming that they're only opposed to specific types of critical thinking rather than all types of critical thinking. But the statement is far too ambiguous to say that with certainty. Further, even if that is the case, it still smacks of massive ignorance because of their blanket labeling of all OBE programs as being what they describe, which is simply far from the truth.

      Christians (though not necessarily all) have a long standing history of anti-intellectualism, including the opposition to scientific inquiry and challenging of authority. It is not at all an unreasonable reading to assume that this platform position is simply a continuance of that same string of anti-intellectualism.

    18. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what they did. They're opposed to "critical thinking skills" programs that are "simply a relabeling" of a system that aims to be anti-religion

      Except that it is far from clear that this is what they meant. Maybe they did, but the wording of their statement (and yes, I read the entire thing) is extremely poor to say the least. Many Christians and Republicans believe quite strongly that intellectual inquiry is the devil's work. (I'm sure many of the lower-class Democrats do as well, but this isn't the Democrat's platform)

      They state (which you conveniently ignore) that the purpose of OBE is to "focus on behavior modification and ... challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.". This is not correct. This severely undermines their overall intellectual credibility and makes us wonder if they really do believe in critical thinking.

    19. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point. However, that still cuts out any basic Philosophy 101 course you'll ever take. The core tenants of philosophy revolve around free will, the search for truth, and asking "What is The Good?". One of the earliest texts -- whole point of Plato's Euthyphro -- asks at its core "what is holy?" which may amount to some critical thinking that is likely to disrupt / question your core beliefs.

      If you start telling teachers they can't talk about those subjects because they're getting state funding, that's flying in the face of 100s of years of academic development. And forget about teaching anything to do with David Hume.

    20. Re:Misleading Summary by dan325 · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't have go through linguistic gymnastics to determine whether or not your official party platform opposes the teaching of critical thinking skills in schools. Really ... it's not something that should be even a little ambiguous.

      Read that again:

      We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, ... critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education ...

      I think a fair reading of that is that they consider all teaching of critical thinking skills to be a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education and, therefore, the platform opposes all teaching of critical thinking. If they, in fact, do not oppose all teaching of critical thinking skills, then that is very poorly worded.

    21. Re:Misleading Summary by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I am going to have to call you out on this. How does this work? Do you honestly and sincerely believe that public schools have a curriculum constructed for the purpose of indoctrinating students to believe "there is no Jesus"? This sounds like Glenn Beck-esque alarmist hyperbole and is in direct conflict with my own experience. I'd want to hear some actual evidence for this Christ-obliterating conspiracy which hides itself under the moniker of "critical thinking skills" before I take your word for it.

      No, I don't believe any of that. I'm not a christian (I'm an atheist), and I don't think people with education degrees are smart enough to pull off such a conspiracy. The running joke when I was getting my engineering degree in college was "if you can't hack it, the college of education is across the hall." Those who went to college so they could learn how to babysit 3rd graders were not exactly considered to be the sharpest knives in the drawer. Honestly watching a battle of wits between education majors and fundamentalists christians just sounds amazing. We should hold a debate for them and set up shop outside selling drool cups and helmets. We'll make a fortune.

      So, no, I don't believe there exists a conspiracy of teachers in Texas to turn kids into atheists. But I do believe the Texas GOP is opposed to the implementation of such a program, even one labeled something innocuous like "critical thinking skills."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    22. Re:Misleading Summary by rmandevi · · Score: 1
      "We oppose the teaching of...programs...which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs"

      First off, learning is always about behavior modification, and usually about challenging fixed beliefs. Teaching math focuses on changing student behavior when encountering numbers and symbols on a piece of paper. Phys. Ed focuses on changing student behavior when swinging at a ball. If you haven't changed their behavior, you haven't taught them anything.

      As to whether the language of the plank refers to things in the generic or the specific, note that "Higher Order Thinking Skills" is capitalized and noted as an acronym. While I can't find it in Google, this at least implies that there is a very specific definition for that term. It's entirely possible that there is a known "Higher Order Thinking Skills" curriculum that is nothing of the sort. But there is certainly ambiguity there that they should have cleaned up, if they're talking about a specific program or curriculum.

      When they say they oppose "critical thinking skills", they didn't say "Critical Thinking Skills", "'Critical Thinking Skills'", or "the so-called 'Critical Thinking Skills' program proposed by those Godless Democrats for the purpose of teaching free love and atheism". There is nothing in their text that implies that they mean anything but the generic sense of critical thinking skills.

      The authors had plenty of opportunity to spin their words properly, if they meant anything other than actually opposing the teaching of critical thinking skills. If they couldn't be bothered to do so, neither should we.

      --
      People who live in glass houses shouldn't walk and text.
    23. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they don't care if you teach children how to discover there is no such thing as an Easter Bunny, they only care if you teach children how to discover there is no Easter Bunny??

      It's forever amusing to see how people with bend and twist things to support or oppose how others bend and twist things.

    24. Re:Misleading Summary by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      I dislike such also, however, I think this post pretty well settles which side of the "what do they mean, what does it really say" argument once and for all.

      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2945547&cid=40487955

      Hat tip to the poster of the above comment who did the leg work needed to get to the truth. I can't think of a thing to add.

    25. Re:Misleading Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, bullshit. There is no teaching people think. We are all born with that. There is incentivizing their ambition to learn and do. These school and these programs do nothing of the sort. An interesting thing happens when you create a giant system that covers every aspect of a kid's life from cradle to (pretend-) maturity. They end up just doing whatever they are told.

      The real purpose of this class is to make the kids believe they are smart, while still feeding them the party line with another spoon. They will only challenge what they are told to challenge.

    26. Re:Misleading Summary by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Again, "purpose of" is different than "may."

      Explaining the Big Bang theory and the process by which cosmologists developed the theory may make kids question Jesus, but the curriculum is not designed specifically to do so unless the teacher says "now kids, we know the bible is full of shit because Edwin Hubble noticed galaxies moving away from each other..."

      I agree with you, but the problem is that some people see far more subjectivity than we do.

      You or I might see certain scientific ideas as merely our best estimates at creating models that appear to describe the way life and the universe works, and that the discussion of supernatural forces being involved are both irrelevant and a distraction. However, some on the far right see these as a liberal agenda to indoctrinate the youth with a secularized and godless view of the world.

      The actual wording of the guidelines appears pretty benign, but potential for subjectivity and bias to be brought into play in the execution of those guidelines concerns me.

    27. Re:Misleading Summary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then I'd put the "blame" back on the Republicans for that sentence. They put the most important part as a dependent clause at the end of the sentence. Where it would likely be cut off, changing the meaning. "Republicans oppose anti-religion curriculum pushed through as 'critical thinking skills'" would have been a much better sentence for them to release. The problem is that they are the only ones that see the problem. It's like all the decency complaints coming from one small organization that purposefully seeks content they expect to be offensive, then complain they are offended. The reason homeschoolers are seen as nuts is that they are almost always the fringe that objects to the lack of God in public schools and sees it as the pushing of anti-God agenda. The vast majority of parents may not be "happy" with public schools, but think that the schools do a better job of teaching than they could do.

      The real problems with Republicans is that they don't want public schools at all, so any attempt to attack them is taken. The goal is to harm children, then prove the children were harmed, then blame the public schools for failing when the Republicans themselves passed the rules and regulations and funding cuts that caused the problem they are complaining about.

      Republicans are deliberately sabotaging public schools to waste taxpayer money, while lying to claim fiscal responsibility.

  19. Teachable Moment by casca69 · · Score: 1

    Ok, so Texans are proud of the fact that they can legally Succeed from the union.
    Can we encourage that?????

    "Today boys and girls, we learn about Texas, and why being independent, belligerent, and unarmed is bad... Who here remembers the coast before China proved the Chicxulub impact to their senate?"

  20. Re:Meanwhile in California by hondo77 · · Score: 1

    Please don't feed the troll.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  21. Re:oppose...critical thinking, undermine...authori by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Why not? It works for North Korea!

    Works for totalitarian regimes everywhere. Two world wars were waged, largely manned by people who stopped thinking and did what they were told.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  22. Texas wants to be more like China?? by Nathgar · · Score: 1

    So, correct me if I am wrong, but independence as an individual requires thinking as an individual, and learning how to do that. It's not something you just grow into by rejecting all of that education provided to you that came before it. The teenage rebellious period of life is completely different then critical thinking. Is Texas trying to emulate China? Maybe the color of China's flag is confusing them? Anyway I guess food preperation specialists, household organizational contractors, and discarded material removal technician's don't actually need critical thinking skills so... WIN?!

  23. Re:Meanwhile in California by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    But, the troll is being modded up, with out sharing a shred of evidence. That is when it bothers me. Basically, many of our moderators seem to lack the same critical thinking skill (from texas?).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  24. wow. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I barely made it through the first page of that thing. If I didn't know better, I would call it a poe's law prank.

    Seriously, how does insanity like that shit (really "sanctity of life crom fertilization to grave"? The authority of the family "defined as a man and a woman", and all that rhetoric? Wow. Heil hitler fuckers. Oh wait, this is the us. "Praise jesus!". My bad.) Manage to get taken seriously in a country *FOUNDED* on independent thought and the outright refusal of state sponsored religion?

    Holy fuck batman, joker's got a jackhammer jesus dildo!

    Seriously. What. The. Fuck.

    1. Re:wow. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "sanctity of life crom fertilization to grave"

      Actually, it's only from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. After that, tough shit if you starve, die from a treatable disease, get shot by someone from a higher social class, die in a war for the benefit of the rich and powerful, or get executed for a crime you didn't commit.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the '80s, Catholics used to talk about a concept called the "seamless web of life" or the "consistent ethic of life." The basic idea embraced all of the following (and back in the '80s when these terms were being bandied about, it wasn't just talk: a lot of Catholic activists were working to bring these things about):

      1). an opposition to abortion;
      2). support for government assistance programs to the poor and needy;
      3). an opposition to war ranging from outright pacifism to grudging support for wars of defense that pass St. Augustine's standards for just war (the Iraq War, for instance would have failed the just war test, by the way);
      4). an opposition to the death penalty;
      5). a support for social justice in all areas of society.

      etc., etc.

      If the GOP really believes in the sanctity of life from fertilization to grave, it needs to do a better job of showing it by deeds, which they are not. Unfortunately, even a lot of the Catholics that once championed this humane and balanced view of society have fallen silent or gone rightwing. Such a shame...

  25. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's your faulty education that makes you want to see proof. cpu6502 is correct for making shit up about the Democrats in order to demonstrate that they're terrible.

  26. Re:Meanwhile in California by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

    I was being sarcastic. Or ironic. One of those. Everyone knows kids don't get failed anymore because we've adopted the Liberal method of not hurting anyone's feelings..... and thus the kids move grade-to-grade-to-grade having learn nothing. --- The libs also oppose testing kids to see if the teachers did their jobs (nearly-all the kids pass) or if the teacher sucks (kids fail).

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  27. Seriously? by sco08y · · Score: 1

    Alarmingly, they openly state that they oppose schools teaching critical thinking...

    So, from the platform, page 12:

    Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

    My boldface. What they're opposing are a specific series of programs that they claim don't teach real critical thinking. It's pathetic.

    Sure, you can argue the merits of OBE and such, but recent experience is that Texas's education system has been very successful compared to other states, when you normalize for social background. Texas has a hell of a lot more poor minorities than Vermont or Wisconsin, and the real measure of a public school system is how the poor kids do, not the rich white kids.

    1. Re:Seriously? by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      They are pretty much saying, using that verbiage that "critical thinking skills" "are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) " because "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs" I don't know much about HOTS or OBE but yes "critical thinking skills" will indeed challenge a students fixed belief. And more to the point: really bad for a lot of religious principles without directly challenging them.

    2. Re:Seriously? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

      What they're opposing are a specific series of programs that they claim don't teach real critical thinking.

      "Critical thinking skills" are not a program, they are subject area of education. They falsely claim that that subject area of education is (and a number of other things, one or more of which may be a program, are) a relabelling of Outcome Based Education (which is a content-neutral approach to managing education.)

      They claim further that they oppose all those supposed relabellings of Outcome Based Education becaue of those approaches "challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority", none of which have any relationship to Outcome Based Education (which is about setting meaningful, objective, consistent outcome measures, and measuring student performance and progress against them, not about what the areas are in which those goals are to be set) but both of which are valid characterizations of actual critical thinking skills, which do deliberately challenge the very idea of "fixed beliefs" and the unquestioning acceptance of any authority.

      Sure, you can argue the merits of OBE and such, but recent experience is that Texas's education system has been very successful compared to other states, when you normalize for social background.

      Even if true -- and, on that point, citation needed -- how is this relevant to either the merits of actual OBE, or the Texas Republican party's opposition to "critical thinking skills" that is justified by the claim that "criticial thinking skills" are simply a relabelling of OBE?

      Please remember that the 2012 Texas Republican Platform isn't the same thing as the actual practices of the Texas State Government (or local education agencies within Texas) that have produced the "recent experience" of Texas' actual educational outcomes.

      Texas has a hell of a lot more poor minorities than Vermont or Wisconsin, and the real measure of a public school system is how the poor kids do, not the rich white kids.

      You seem to be dangerously close to endorsing the idea that education should be assessed by objective measures of how students perform, rather than by what material is presented. Which would be ironic, when you seem also be trying to attack the idea of OBE.

    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My boldface. What they're opposing are a specific series of programs that they claim don't teach real critical thinking.

      Then why not just say that, instead of the opposite? Oh, I forgot, we're talking about the "war is peace, freedom is slavery" party here.

    4. Re:Seriously? by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      I agree with your reading of the platform, that the Texas Republican Party opposes specific programs, not the teaching of critical thinking in general.

      However, there is a very large subtext of this whole matter, which is that the major political parties in Texas are waging political warfare in the school curriculum arena. What the Republicans (who are in power) actually desire is to prevent children from growing up to vote for Democrats. I have no doubt that the Democrats would do the same were they in the same position of power. I suspect they may have done so in the past. Republican majorities in Texas are a fairly recent phenomenon, although the racist right wing Texas Democratic Party that ruled from the end of reconstruction until the Republicans took over in the wake of the Democrats supporting civil rights was hardly comparable to the modern version of the Democratic Party.

      The Texas Republicans have shown, though, an alarming desire and willingness to use every possible tool, legal or illegal, to secure a permanent one-party system in the state. (See TRMPAC. See also a wide variety of "fighting voter fraud" efforts, designed primarily to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters - the actual incidence of voter fraud being vanishingly miniscule. And also see, of course, the blatant, unapologetic gerrymandering of districts.) This may be understandable as a reaction to the previous century of Democratic single-party rule, but personally, I dislike single party systems. Frankly, I dislike political parties altogether.

      Fortunately, my children have learned and are learning a great deal beyond the confines of public schools, thanks to parents and grandparents who spend time, money, effort, and more time on teaching them, providing learning and experience opportunities to them, and making sure they learn to reason and make decisions on their own. I can undermine my own parental authority just fine, thanks.

      --
      WALSTIB!
  28. Well, duh! by Lynchenstein · · Score: 1

    Double duh. (Things are bigger in Texas after all...)

  29. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DNC educational platform is teaching that 2+2==3 is "not wrong" and the kid should be given praise because he tried hard. B for effort.

    Both these parties suck hard.

    Citation please.

  30. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give him a break, he probably was educated in Texas - facts and proof aren't used there.

  31. Re:Meanwhile in California by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

    And of course Obamacare shows that the Democrats are just puppets of the insurance corporations:
    "We need 50 million new customers."
    "No problem; we'll just mandate that everyone MUST buy your product." - Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc.
    "Exxxxxcellent." - corporate CEOs after they gain 50 million new customers.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  32. Trollish summary by Experiment+626 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you actually look at the platform, the Texas Republicans' opposition is to the Outcome Based Education philosophy. Proponents of this methodology sometimes label it "critical thinking skills" since after all, who doesn't favor that? The summary submitter (and about half of the comments at this point) fall into the same logical fallacy as "If you oppose the PATRIOT Act, you must oppose patriotism!", ironically due to a lack of critical thinking skills...

    1. Re:Trollish summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If their platform doesn't oppose the teaching of critical thinking skills, they shouldn't have included "critical thinking skills" with a list of things their platform opposes.

    2. Re:Trollish summary by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are explicitly saying that they oppose this HOTS/OBE/whatever because, I quote, it "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." I don't care what OBE is. It may well be that it can and should be challenged on common sense grounds. But these dicks are saying that they're challenging it because it doesn't let them indoctrinate their kids.

    3. Re:Trollish summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I still don't understand why OBE is such a bad thing. Putting aside other poster's mentioning that the quote is actually about "higher order thinking skills", there's still the issue of what OBE is about.

      Basically, it's about demonstrating that you've learned something rather than assuming you've learned it because you've put the time into it.

      I.e., just because you've sat in class doesn't mean you've learned it--you have to demonstrate it based on measurable performance.

      E.g., tests.

      OBE is about measuring performance.

      So the GOP is against higher-order thinking skills and measuring performance. They want students to sit there and regurgitate what their parents are telling them regardless of whether they're *learning* anything.

      It doesn't sound very good for the GOP either way.

    4. Re:Trollish summary by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      If you actually look at the platform, the Texas Republicans' opposition is to the Outcome Based Education philosophy. Proponents of this methodology sometimes label it "critical thinking skills" since after all, who doesn't favor that?

      I don't agree with the platform. I am not a Republican. I do believe in critical thinking.

      I also think, as someone who has been actively involved in the field of education (and has been through a number of pedagogy seminars) that the Wikipedia article doesn't adequately convey the associations of the term to people in the educational field.

      While it is true that Outcome Based Education can just mean things like testing specific tasks (and thus has recently become connected with things like No Child Left Behind), when it was first proposed a few decades ago, it tended to incorporate a whole lot of modern educational theory (much of it BS, as is most educational theory), most of which tends to be associated with "liberals"... because, well, stats show that most teachers are liberals, and most college professors in schools of education who come up with things like OBE are even more liberal.

      I have no idea what is going on here in terms of agendas concerning Creationism or respecting parental authority or whatever, but I can say that the whole OBE thing is probably included because it's a bunch of liberal education mumbo-jumbo. Furthermore, people who use "OBE" and "critical thinking skills" in the same sentence probably are using "critical thinking skills" in the way that traditional old-school "learning-goals" OBE BS uses the term "critical thinking skills," which is to say... "I'm going to make up a bunch of crap that sounds fancy and reorganize my class for no apparent reason instead of actually being a better teacher." It has little to do with actual thinking. Or, at least that's the perception that conservatives have regarding the stereotypical old form of this educational "framework."

    5. Re:Trollish summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But these dicks are saying that they're challenging it because it doesn't let them indoctrinate their kids.

      I was more of the understanding that they oppose it on the basis that parental indoctrination should take precedence over school-based indoctrination.

      You can look at this issue two ways. On the one hand, you can say that some kind of indoctrination is inevitable, and it's just a question of who gets to do it to whose kids. On the other hand, you can say that indoctrination of any sort is a fundamental wrong, so nobody should do it to anyone, and the teaching of critical thinking skills is the way to ensure that nobody gets indoctrinated. That all sounds nice until you realise that teaching the evil of indoctrination and the good of critical thinking is a specific programme of indoctrination -- one that damns itself by its own words.

      That's less of a dilemma than it might be. You can restore self-consistency by dropping the "indoctrination is evil" part: you just need to admit that you're engaging in indoctrination yourself (e.g. "indoctrination is inevitable, and we should be the ones to do it because we are super-enlightened because [insert self-justification here]"), or just recognise that you can teach critical thinking without waging an ideological war against the concept of indoctrination. In the latter case, parents still have the right to indoctrinate in whatever way they see fit, and you should respect that right, but at least the little tykes will be trained to ask the hard questions all on their own.

    6. Re:Trollish summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, and it's the state's job to indoctrinate their children. Who are they to think they get to instill their own values in their kids.

    7. Re:Trollish summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite clear that they included "critical thinking skills" in a list of things they oppose. They didn't say they oppose "OBE innacurately relabeled as critical thinking skills". Reading that into their statement is wishful thinking. At best, they believe that "critical thinking skills" = OBE. But maybe you're right and the person who wrote this paragraph was being unintentionally unclear. I invite you to show me some examples where OBE has been inappropriately labled as "critical thinking skills".

    8. Re:Trollish summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't let them indoctrinate their kids

      I'm sorry, but how many liberal families bring their children to Southern Baptist churches to give them a chance to figure it out for themselves?

      Everyone indoctrinates their kids. The only difference is whether that dogma agrees with your dogma or not.

    9. Re:Trollish summary by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The point of teaching kids critical thinking is precisely so that they can see indoctrination for what it is, and make their own value judgments about what they are being told rather than taking it all for granted. "Liberal" and "conservative" doesn't even enter into it, unless you're trying to argue that critical thinking is a liberal dogma.

  33. Re:Meanwhile in California by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Hey, another ad hom lie from CPU6502

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. Danger - Thoughtcrime Scene by presidenteloco · · Score: 5, Funny

    No no no.

    Don't you realize how dangerous it would be to have your fixed beliefs changed by:

    a) A changing situation or

    b) Your changing level of knowledge of the situation.

    There is no telling where that could lead. It could lead to DANCING, for God's sake!

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Danger - Thoughtcrime Scene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could lead to DANCING, for God's sake!

      And contraceptives.

  35. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's that smell? Oh it's your breath. You seem to be talking out of your ass!

  36. Baffling by jweller13 · · Score: 1

    I read thru the referenced platform document and I find it baffling how any reasonable person could be against teaching critical thinking skills to kids.

  37. Ignorant and illiterate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is fast becoming the land of the ignorant and illiterate with weapons of mass destruction. Just look at Bush to see the best that comes of Texas education - he can barely put together a sentence, much less a cogent or even coherent analysis or explanation of anything. His foreign policy amounts to: I don't like it/them/something - blow it/them up, blow them up good, blow it up real good.

  38. Re:Meanwhile in California by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

    What's actually ironic is that you are giving the Republican's stance on education the same grade as the Democrat's to protect your own feelings from being hurt by the Republican's failure. How "liberal" of you.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  39. Re:Meanwhile in California by snl2587 · · Score: 1

    A reason for opposing testing as the sole metric is that no one yet has found a completely fair and practical way to do it. Additionally, statewide testing usually means that all but the brightest students have to spend the majority of their schooling being taught how to take the test, rather than actually learning anything.

  40. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice back peddling.

  41. Trolling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Are the summary and the title trolling? Or in other words RTFA. While the Texas Republican party isn't exactly an example of honesty and intelligence, in this case they are taking a stand against a particular unproven set of educational reforms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education The buzz-words they are objecting to are so ill-defined, and in practice so slippery, that I would instead read this article as an attempt to claim the middle ground and portray the Democrats as out of touch with reality.
      If you want to object to their platform I would suggest looking two items up on the same page, and then bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    1. Re:Trolling? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      Are the summary and the title trolling? Or in other words RTFA. While the Texas Republican party isn't exactly an example of honesty and intelligence, in this case they are taking a stand against a particular unproven set of educational reforms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education The buzz-words they are objecting to are so ill-defined, and in practice so slippery, that I would instead read this article as an attempt to claim the middle ground and portray the Democrats as out of touch with reality.

      What's interesting about the platform is that they are using outcome-based education to smear critical thinking.

      Especially interesting since OBE (in the form of NCLB) was one of their proud accomplishments a decade or so ago.

      But a smart move, since everyone despises it now.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Trolling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a rather... insane rephrasing.

      Bob says: "I oppose tax cuts during a recession! And I also oppose the Tax-Based Economic Stimulus program which is simply a relabelling of tax cuts!"

      John says: "Oh, look at Bob, he is using tax cuts to smear the TBES program!

      And the second insane rephrasing is to pretend that HOTS is the same as higher order thinking skills (noncapitalised).

      Left-wingers do come across to me as batshit raving mad and a threat to the world generally.

    3. Re:Trolling? by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      His noodly goodness would never deign to sully the tips of his tentacles with proximity to any Texas politics.

      --
      WALSTIB!
  42. What's the difference between the US and Iraq? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US actually has weapons of mass destruction, and uses them.

    1. Re:What's the difference between the US and Iraq? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The US actually has weapons of mass destruction, and uses them.

      That's *two* differences, but only for the last c. 20 years.

      "Sodom" Hussein had+used them earlier. On his own people, no less.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  43. H.O.T.S.? by Chemisor · · Score: 2

    We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)

    I think most Slashdotters would oppose this opinion. Most of us know that HOTS is a very desirable way to get educated.

  44. READ MY POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone disagrees or misunderstands you and your immediate reaction is to should obscenities and abuse. What sort of education did you get? You obviously weren't taught any manners.

    1. Re:READ MY POST by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You can't conclude that. It is entirely possible that he was taught manners, but forgot them, or didn't really learn them. It is also possible that he was taught manners, and generally uses them, but he isn't aware that he should be using them online just as he would use them in person. Of course, there is always the possibility that he just happened to be in a cussin' and abusive mood when he posted.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:READ MY POST by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm guessing he was taught who George Washington was and how to find the US, but little about applying critical thinking to a discussion. And he clearly prefers it that way.

      Maybe he's right about "higher order thinking skills" being broadly applied as a label for general (and not well tested) education reforms; I wouldn't know. But encouraging children to challenge their fixed beliefs is crucial in my books, even if it potentially undermines parental authority (speaking as a parent myself). Any party that explicitly discourages that should be kept well away from positions of authority.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    3. Re:READ MY POST by DragonTHC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree, if my kids don't rebel when they become teenagers, I'm doing something wrong.

      Besides, school will teach my kids how to read and write. I will teach them how to communicate.

      School will teach my kids how to add and multiply and I will teach them how to calculate.

      School will teach my kids about the past. I will teach them about the future.

      And school will teach my kids about natual history and science. Maybe not, I will have to teach my kids science.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    4. Re:READ MY POST by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

      It exercises your wisdom, but I prefer to engrave ElberethElberethElberethElberethElberethElbereth so that one Elbereth likely remains even after several letters become obscured.

    5. Re:READ MY POST by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      in today's culture, manners and feelings and consensus matter more than correctness, assertiveness, and the facts.. who cares if he's rude so long as he's right.. get a thicker hide..

    6. Re:READ MY POST by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Yo dawg, I heard you liek Elbereth...

      Nah,... I'll stop. Sorry.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    7. Re:READ MY POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fine with this, as long as the "critical thinking" also applies to challenging the beliefs of the teacher

      The problem is that this scheme has all-too-often been a fig leaf for teachers undermining everything the parents stand for while indoctrinating the kids into left-wing political beliefs. I have seen this first-hand and have a relative who is a public school teacher (and extreme lefty) who does this. It is extremely dishonest and is a pure political play

      This garbage that it's a good idea to have teenagers rebel against parents/authorities is historically very recent (which is why young Slashdotters may not see just how badly they have been manipulated). The teenage rebel theme really only got going in the US in the fifties (which is part of why James Dean was such a stand-out) and it has been rather unhealthy in many ways. It's one thing to teach kids to think outside the box and question everything (good)... but another thing all-together to teach that ones' elders are idiots with backwards/repressed/oppressive values (this is dumb and encourages younger generations to be jerks who reject many of the lessons earlier generations learned the hard way)

      The current economic mess might have been avoided had this generation of business leaders learned and absorbed the lessons of the generation that lived through the market crash and "Great Depression". Sadly, we are training the current children of western civilization to unlearn more and more of what generations before them paid a very high price to learn and at some point they will reap the whirlwind

    8. Re:READ MY POST by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Good tip; don't think I ever tried that.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    9. Re:READ MY POST by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      I'd have thought that went without saying. If the student is uncritically accepting their teacher's political beliefs, they're clearly not being taught critical thinking.

      Of course, if the student does accept their teacher's political beliefs, that isn't automatically evidence that the student isn't thinking critically - even if they disagree with your own beliefs.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  45. Re:it's easier to think what someone telks you to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And anyone who denies their perspective becomes 'the other,' someone to be feared and hated, shunned and eliminated, one way or the other.

    The Progressive. The Liberal. The Warmist. The Jew.

  46. Re:Meanwhile in California by jweller13 · · Score: 1

    From what I understand teachers are reluctant to give deserved low grades. There is so much competition to get into college that parents gasp in terror at even any bad grade. Parents apply intense pressure on teachers to elevate what should be a low or failing grade.

  47. I'm Right Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have ranted for the last 35 years that parents were the greatest problem in educating the young. here we have the state of Texas supporting the notion that parents matter and facts are irrelevant. Is our nation moronic enough yet?

  48. conservatives oppose testable results by obtuse · · Score: 1

    Outcome Based Education means only having testable results, and promoting based on achievement, not on what has been thrown at the students. Look it up yourself in Wikipedia, that's what I did. You can call names all you want, but the article is very clear on that. This is how education traditionally worked, not the "social promotion" and other programs that aren't serving us well now.

    From Wikipedia:
    "OBE in itself does not specify or require any particular style of teaching or learning. Instead, it requires that students demonstrate that they have learned the required skills and content."

    Now, the article goes on to make unsupported claims about how OBE is praticed, but in principle, you're opposing testable results.

    You need to improve your critical thinking skills.

    --
    Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
    1. Re:conservatives oppose testable results by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 2

      Exactly. I implemented a form of this when I last taught high school English. it worked wonders for some students. Under the old model, a student would turn in an essay, I would cover it in red ink and put a grade on it before handing it back. They student would look at the grade (not the comments) and toss it in the trash can. We then moved on to the next topic whether they understood it or not. This was the "traditional" method. Once I implemented an outcomes-based plan it worked differently. I graded the assignments and handed them back with comments. If they didn't pass, the students redid the assignment until they proved to me that they understood the concepts, at which point I changed the grade to passing. They repeated as many times as necessary. If anything, I found myself grading more harshly. It was awesome.

    2. Re:conservatives oppose testable results by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      How do you get a 100% on a test made by conservatives?

      Answer Jesus to every question.

      /trollish post
      //but made me laugh.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    3. Re:conservatives oppose testable results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when the Bush administration teamed-up with Ted Kennedy and passed "no child left behind" the left-wing-aligned teachers unions went nuts and they still oppose it as a rallying cry. Obama has given many of the schools waivers. They loved all the new money but they hated the testing and particularly the bits designed to test teachers...

  49. but I’ll tell you what they don’t want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    . . . they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that . . . that doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting focked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fuckin' years ago. They don’t want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers . . . Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitt!er jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money.

    ---RIP G. Carlin

  50. Re:Meanwhile in California by bbushvt · · Score: 1

    Testing kids does little to measure how much a kid learns nor does it measure how good a teacher is. Heavy testing leads to students only being taught whats on the test, which is a huge disservice to the student. Measuring a teachers performance by how well your students do only works if all your students are intelligent enough to understand the material.

  51. Knowledge is Power by khelms · · Score: 1

    ....Power Corrupts.... Corruption is a Crime.... therefore, Knowledge is a Crime!!!

  52. Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does it benefit Texas or the US to keep those in the US illegally, out of school and ignorant? Surely, whatever is done regarding their illegal presence in the US, as long as they are in the US it is better for everyone if they are educated. If the cost of educating those the US allows to stay illegally is beyond what the wealthiest nation in the world can bear, then they should be deported for that reason, if for no other. But to keep a growing population of ignorant people, effectively denying them access to education and preventing their integration with the society in which they live (and are accepted, if they are not deported) is damnable.

  53. I want kids, not pets by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alarmingly, they openly state that they oppose schools teaching critical thinking, on the grounds that it may challenge 'student's fixed beliefs' and undermine 'parental authority.'

    As a parent, I don't want complete unquestioned authority over my kids' thoughts. I've made a long-standing habit of flat out lying to my kids and getting them to catch me in it. When one of them says, "Dad, I think you just made that up", then I think I've done my job as a parent.

    That doesn't mean I want complete, unquestioned disrespect. To channel my dad, it's my house and my rules. But I fully expect to have to defend my opinions to my kids. Even if they ultimately disagree with my point of view, at least I've taught them why I believe the way I do. And if I'm not able to satisfactorily explain and defend those opinions, maybe I need to reconsider them.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:I want kids, not pets by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      As a parent, I don't want complete unquestioned authority over my kids' thoughts.

      There's more to parental authority than just over what your kids think. In fact, I'd say that control of what they think is about the least important part of parental authority, since it is almost impossible to control it anyway. Do your homework, go to bed, be home by 10PM, tell me where you are going with your friends and bring them over to the house so I can meet them. If you use the car, you put gas in it. Mow the lawn today. No, you may NOT take the car tonight. I don't care what you think, you aren't going to a sleepover at your girlfriend's house. Those are parental authority, too.

      To channel my dad, it's my house and my rules.

      So you do understand what parental authority involves and do want to keep it for yourself. Tell me again why you think it would be good for the schools to use methods of teaching for the purpose of undermining that authority? Not just might do so, but with the purpose of doing so.

      And if I'm not able to satisfactorily explain and defend those opinions, maybe I need to reconsider them.

      If you see the instruction to "be home by 10PM", or "no, you may not borrow the car tonight", as an opinion, then you truly have abandoned parental authority already, and there is no need for the schools to undermine it.

    2. Re:I want kids, not pets by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      But I fully expect to have to defend my opinions to my kids. Even if they ultimately disagree with my point of view, at least I've taught them why I believe the way I do. And if I'm not able to satisfactorily explain and defend those opinions, maybe I need to reconsider them.

      A while back I learned a great saying (from a religious blogger in fact). "An opinion is not just a right, it is a responsibility." In other words, people who have (or really act on) opinions without good reasons for those opinions are behaving irresponsibly.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:I want kids, not pets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I've ever seen a more textbook example of constructing and dismantling a strawman. So thanks for that.

    4. Re:I want kids, not pets by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Is one of your kids named Calvin?

    5. Re:I want kids, not pets by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > No, you may NOT take the car tonight. I don't care what you think, you aren't going to a sleepover at your girlfriend's house.

      Well, as my dad used to say about my little sister and her first boyfriend when his father made a rule along those lines: "If they want to fuck no amount of rules about sleep-overs are going to stop them. All we've GOT is the trust that they will remember the things we taught them. If they then decide to do it anyway, then I would PREFER they do it in my house so I can at least stop them from doing it stupidly."

      My dad is a strong proponent of abstinence-until-marriage but at least he isn't an idiot who thinks nobody ever makes a mistake even if they AGREE with his position (as my sister did). He taught abstinence, but he taught condoms AS WELL.

      For the record, she was 14 at the time he said that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:I want kids, not pets by caturday · · Score: 1

      I wish I had karma for this. You are a model parent and citizen. Keep it up.

    7. Re:I want kids, not pets by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If they then decide to do it anyway,

      Which would come from, perhaps, someone trying to undermine your parental authority. "Here's how you can do it safely, and there really are no moral principles involved. Everyone else is doing it. It's just sex. No, oral sex really isn't sex anyway. Nobody cares if you aren't emotionally ready for that activity, and it won't really mess you up in the future. No, of course, no boy would ever post naked photos of you with his schlong in your mouth on the internet. And no boy would ever start rumors about you being a slut after you break up with Mr. Right."

      Point stands, you want the authority and it isn't a good thing when a school or anyone else tries to undermine it.

      What message do you send to your children if you tell them "no" on some activity and then turn around and say "yes"? Which is it? You don't know, or you can't make up your mind. That's the message. You might as well just start with "do it in my house where I can supervise" and be consistent.

      As for teaching both absintence and condoms, same thing. You are aware that abstinence, when used properly, is 100% effective, and condoms, when used properly, are not?

    8. Re:I want kids, not pets by robsku · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing rules for living - something partly set by society, partly by parents, etc. - with views, opinions and reasoning here... Clearly what Just Some Guy is saying is not that rules set by parent (him) are "just opinions" open to be questioned (as in not respected) freely, while he probably is ready for open civilized discussion about the rules and the reasoning for them.

      This does not throw parental authority away, in fact it makes it stronger. People of all ages respect rules better if they get to discuss them and hear the reasoning behind them rather than being simply dictated "this is how it goes because I say so", even if they disagree with them - and it does provide reasonable way for the child to question the rules and parents to adjust their views if they deem it reasonable. This is especially important with teenagers, with who you can easily lose respect if your rules are seen only as tyranny through parenthood with no chance to even discuss the reasoning behind.

      Sure you can just act like unquestionable rules, and depending on your kids you may even be able to enforce your rules, but you will still teach your kid obedience (at best) without respect for authority - that's not good for you, for your kids nor for their attitude towards authorities in general.

      Finally I don't understand where you get the idea about "purpose of undermining authority" - I don't see anything like that on the parenting philosophy of Just Some Guy, quite the opposite.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    9. Re:I want kids, not pets by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Not long ago (just two generations ago) a person who hit puberty were expected to hold down a job and pay their own way - and get married.

      The suggestion that today they cannot make a decision about their own bodies is completely idiotic and my dad just realized that.

      Now my dad is a deeply faithful Christian, so you'll have to accept that in trying to explain his position I will use Christian terminology.
      That position was: "This is what God wants you to do, this is what he expects of you. But we are all sinners, which is not an excuse to sin without a care, but it does mean that sometimes - we all make mistakes. You might make a mistake on this count. The Bible says 'do not kill' but if my son gets in a bar-fight and hits somebody too hard and kills him I would still stand by him and visit him in prison. In the same way, if you make a mistake on THIS sin, then I will also stand by you - and at least help you to try and mitigate the consequences."

      Anything else is not only unrealistic but also un-Christian. You cannot profess to be a Christian and then expect perfect compliance with the law of God since a fundamental principle of Christianity is that nobody is CAPABLE of following the law of God exactly - indeed that ALL people break ALL the laws ALL the time. That's what Christians need Jesus FOR.
      The only variation is one of degree. Christians TRY to obey the law out of grattitude for salvation but they do so KNOWING it's a lost cause.
      Expecting children to never break the law about sex before marriage - not EVER is silly.

      And it's a thousand times more silly now. Until very recently keeping that law meant saving your virginity for a couple of years, maybe 5 for the spinsters - and staying married for life was a 20 year commitment (because life expectancy was 40 or less).
      Now kids are hitting puberty earlier than ever before, and the time after that before marriage is practical is as long as the marriages themselves used to be. That was NOT God's plan by any reasonable reading.

      Then there is the potential consequences. One night of oops I went too far used to mean at worst that you got pregnant. Now it could KILL you. Jesus himself declared that the penalty for adultery should NOT be death, so how is teaching safe-sex not DIRECTLY in line with those teachings ?

      >Point stands, you want the authority and it isn't a good thing when a school or anyone else tries to undermine it.

      It is not undermining my authority to teach my children things I didn't teach them about things I didn't want them to know. It merely means I didn't do my JOB as a parent. It's the difference between condoning something and merely acknowledging it's existence. Parents who deny the existence of what they don't condone are bad parents. They are the only ones who think it "undermines their authority" when somebody else goes and tell their kids about the stuff they denied the existence off.
      I sure as hell don't condone shooting people, but I won't pretend to my kids that guns don't exist. I don't condone violence - but I am not stupid enough to imagine that if I refuse to teach them self-defence they will never be attacked.

      I have no problem with teaching your moral values, but teach responsible behavior AS WELL. Especially when the most basic principle of your moral belief system states that following those morals without mistakes is NOT humanly possible.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:I want kids, not pets by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Tell me again why you think it would be good for the schools to use methods of teaching for the purpose of undermining that authority? Not just might do so, but with the purpose of doing so.

      I don't think anyone thinks that's a good thing, but it is even possible? What in a curriculum do you think could progress that goal? And, even if that is something that's possible, why would you assume that the anti-education party isn't just making up shit to attack education?

      When taking it in a practical sense, the complaint is "critical thinking makes it harder for parents to brainwash children into believing in the FSM." That's not undermining parental authority Parental authority is obedience, not brainwashing.

  54. You people are missing the forest for the trees! by WilliamBaughman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Keep reading! You can find the PDF here via the Texas GOP Convention site. I had to track it down myself because it was so unbelievable; it seemed like Huff Po had fallen for a juvenile prank.

    We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.

    Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

    I just goes on

    Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.

    and on

    We urge amendment of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send the government any personal information about their contributors.

    and on

    We support adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States.

    It covers everything from banning red light cameras, opposing mandatory animal identification, and opposing Federal highways through Texas to rubbing salt in wounds like the restoration of plaques honoring the Confederate Widow’s Pension Fund to the Texas Supreme Court building. No wonder these people are so upset. They're beset on all sides by people who want to speak Spanish or burn American flags or say that gay bashing is bad or let African Americans and Hispanic Americans vote. You know, people who don't want to say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance, or who think that religious monuments shouldn't be erected on Federal land. Maybe they should feel under assault, people who think like they do are dying off because they just don't make bigots like they used to.

  55. Summary is more accurate than parent's response by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you actually look at the platform, the Texas Republicans' opposition is to the Outcome Based Education philosophy.

    If one were to actually read the platform, one would note that the Texas Republicans -- and this is a direct quote -- "oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs".

    They claim -- as justification -- that all those things are "simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning)", which is factually incorrect (OBE is essentially an approach to the management of education, while critical thinking skills are a skill area; the two are completely orthogonal) but independently of their justification, they do, in fact, state that they oppose teaching critical thinking skills.

    And, looking beyond that, their further reason for opposing teaching all those supposed relabellings of OBE -- the potential to threaten students "fixed beliefs" -- is something that does not make sense for OBE at all (since OBE is content-neutral), but directly relevant to critical thinking skills (actual critical thinking skills, not any that would be a relabelling of OBE.)

    1. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      If one were to actually read the platform, one would note that the Texas Republicans -- and this is a direct quote -- "oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs".

      You've eliminated an awful lot of the actual sentence that you are quoting without any indication that you have done so. The rest of that sentence contains "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      Why did you stop reading in the middle of the sentence? You're deliberately ignoring a large part of the entire statement. A part that contains significant meaning, I would add. In other words, your claim that it is a "direct quote" is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

      And, looking beyond that, their further reason for opposing teaching all those supposed relabellings of OBE -- the potential to threaten students "fixed beliefs" ...

      Now you are deliberately misquoting the platform because it does not talk about "the potential to", it says quite clearly "have the purpose of". Do you not understand the difference?.

      You're not the only one doing it, but you're being rather blatant. You're doing what is typically done to Republican statements. If a Republican says "I oppose giving children balanced lunches that have mold growing on them", you'd claim that Republicans oppose giving children any kind of balanced lunch. In this case, the opposition is to the purpose and intent of the education and not the education itself.

      Read all the words. They are there for a reason.

    2. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, a relative clause introduced by "which" is not a restriction but simply a clarification that can be freely omitted without changing meaning. If you actually oppose only a subset of "critical thinking and similar programs", you shuld start the relative clause with "that".

    3. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by arose · · Score: 1

      Does it, or does it not state that programs that "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"? Before you accuse me of quoting out of context as well, the context is as follows, everything before this phrase merely lists various programs that are believed to have such purpose. If you want to argue that that is not the purpose of that phrase you will have to be specific, if you don't you will have to be specific on how challenging fixed beliefs is not essential to critical thinking.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    4. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      You've eliminated an awful lot of the actual sentence that you are quoting without any indication that you have done so.

      The rest of the sentence is their justification for opposing the things they oppose, not the list of the things they oppose.

      The rest of that sentence contains "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

      Interestingly, you omitted a lot of the rest of the sentence without any indication. Which is kind of hypocritical, given your comment above. Particularly, the part where they claim that things in the list that they oppose are secretly relabellings of Outcome Based Education. The part you quote above actually is their description of what "Outcomes Based Education" supposedly is

      Interestingly, that description its more true of what actually teaching critical thinking skills is about (its bizarrely narrow subset of what critical thinking is about, and deliberately phrased in loaded language) than it is of Outcomes Based Education -- OBE has nothing to do with behavior modification, unless you are talking about behavior of those evaluating education systems and students, whereas teaching critical thinking skills does, in fact, focus on modifying the behavior students exhibit when exposed to information, and does in fact have the purpose of challenging "fixed beliefs" and undermining irrational bases for the acceptance of claims, including authority (including implicitly, though its not a particular focus, parental authority it is a fallacious basis for accepting a fact claim.)

      If a Republican says "I oppose giving children balanced lunches that have mold growing on them", you'd claim that Republicans oppose giving children any kind of balanced lunch.

      A better analogy would be if someone (Republican or not) said "I oppose giving students balanced school lunches, which are simply a relabelling of the Zagat Guide Ratings, which has the purpose undermining malnutrition." (Its not quite a perfect analogy, because I can't really think of something that does the trick that the Texas Republican platform does of picking out what happens to be an accurate subset of the purpose of critical thinking skills, but using loaded language and a highly selective presentation to make it appear scary.)

    5. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Does it, or does it not state that programs that "have the purpose of challenging the studentâ(TM)s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"?

      It claims that Outcome Based Education has that goal (which is a flat-out false statement) and it claims that the other things it opposes (which are not all programs, particularly "teaching critical thinking skills" is not a program, though one might adopt a program that does that) are relabellings of Outcomes Based Education.

      if you don't you will have to be specific on how challenging fixed beliefs is not essential to critical thinking.

      Uh, no. Actually, what I will do is say that while the assocation with Outcomes Based Education is a flat-out lie, that modify students behavior when confronted with claims, challenging the idea of fixed beliefs, and challenging the unquestioning acceptance of any authority (including parental) within the domain of evaluating claims is exactly the core of critical thinking skills.

      Which is exactly why the claim that they aren't really saying they are opposing actual teaching of critical thinking skills because of the language later in the sentence is false -- their claimed basis for opposing critical thinking skills and other things is an accurate (if worded in the most hostile manner possible) description of central purposes of actually teaching critical thinking skills.

      They don't want students to have their behavior changed so that they question claims and critically evaluate them rather than accepting or rejecting presented claims on the basis of pre-existing fixed beliefs and authority.

      That's what they are being challenged for. And that's what they flat-out say.

    6. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas Republicans -- and this is a direct quote -- "oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (TM)

      I note that they oppose Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (TM), not higher order thinking skills.

    7. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by dan325 · · Score: 1

      I think the only thing you can say with any certainty about that the platform is that is very poorly worded and ambiguous.

    8. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by arose · · Score: 1

      We are in agreement, that's precisely why I focused on the last part that shows that despite claims to the contrary they oppose teaching core skills necessary for critical thinking, unless it somehow doesn't mean exactly what is says. You want to take your argument to Obfuscant directly.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    9. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The rest of the sentence is their justification for opposing the things they oppose, not the list of the things they oppose.

      The rest of the sentence is a qualification on specifically what they oppose. If a program being used doesn't have the purpose they list, then it is not what they oppose. It's really pretty simple. Read all the words, you might catch all the meaning.

      Interestingly, you omitted a lot of the rest of the sentence without any indication.

      You truly do have a reading comprehension problem. I said that the rest of the sentence CONTAINS, not that it was a direct quote. I didn't claim I was making a direct quote as you did when you ignored the qualifying clauses that followed what you quoted.

      I've tried enough, your confirmation bias wins.

    10. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The rest of the sentence is a qualification on specifically what they oppose.

      Even if that was true -- and I disagree that that is a reasonable reading -- it wouldn't matter, because even read that way it still opposes teaching actual critical thinking skills, since what it points to is, though phrased in loaded language and with a narrow focus, actually central to the entire concept of critical thinking, which is opposed both to the very concept of "fixed beliefs" and to authority-as-justification.

      I said that the rest of the sentence CONTAINS, not that it was a direct quote.

      It was a direct quote, whether you said it was or not (which you did actually say, by using quotation marks, since that's what using quotation marks means), and what you omitted was directly relevant to the part you quoted and its role in relation to the rest of the sentence.

    11. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Even if that was true -- and I disagree that that is a reasonable reading -- it wouldn't matter, because even read that way it still opposes teaching actual critical thinking skills,...

      Only those in programs that have a PURPOSE of undermining parental authority and questioning fixed beliefs. All the words, please.

      It was a direct quote,...

      It was a quote, but not a direct quote, and in any case, I was explicit in saying that the rest of the sentence CONTAINS. I didn't say that I was quoting it in entirety. I didn't imply as much, either, unless you are trying to argue that the word "contains" implies "contains this and only this and nothing else", which is absurd.

      And in any case, I've already quoted the entire plank, so if you are confused, you can find the information.

    12. Re:Summary is more accurate than parent's response by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The Republicans don't like OBE. Thus, any program they think is outcome-based is suspect. From what I can tell, the real problem was that OBE demonstrated that schools aren't as bad off as the Republicans like to assert (those garduating could read and such). And when they are pushing vouchers, they want to make sure the schools are failing, so the standardized tests that help must be bad. This platform is like all Republican stances on education. Cripple public education so that we can give more welfare to the rich. It's all about increasing welfare for the rich, and never about the children. Every Republican I've seen in TX with similar policies put their children through private school. Most politicians do, then cite "security" reasons and such.

  56. Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    ...because they just don't make bigots like they used to.

    Not for lack of trying...

  57. ill-gotten gain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bit like the US taking oil from the middle-east.

  58. but the college system does not even tech that by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    but the college system does not even tech you how to run the machines no they teach the high level theory that most of the time is to much the theory side so you have a big skill gap in how to run / fix the machine.

  59. No teaching critical thinking = tech the test by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    No teaching critical thinking = tech the test.

    The tech the test idea needs to go away as the extreme of that is cramming for the test with no idea on what the test covers or how to deal what you are being tested on in a real work place. Also the test needs to open book so have to do some critical thinking to find the answer.

  60. On his own people, no less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least, when they used them on their own people, they had the decency to keep to themselves and not pretend superiority as an excuse to invade and terrorise others.

  61. no surprise you were modded "funny" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eventually the society will be so dumb

    if anyone wants to dumb down society, its your lord and savior ron paul. under the regime he dreams about, most people wouldn't be able to afford an education. hell, most people would drop out before even finishing high school because they wouldn't be able to afford to wait to the age of 18 to start a full-time job. if we are to have any hope of advancing as a society, as a nation, or as a civilization, we need to ensure that at the very least there is equal access to education. instead your lord ron paul wants to advocate for the destruction of socio-economic mobility and the hyperstratification of economic classes in this country.

  62. A "different" Critical Thinking Skills by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a son who is autistic. Nevertheless, he recently complete a community college certificate course in Culinary Prep for Disabled Students. One of the major portions of the classroom study was "critical thinking" and covered:

    Is this the right thing to do?
    Is this the right time to do this?
    Is this the right person to do this to/with?
    etc.

    You get the point. Decisions that we make daily we tend to take for granted because of our (mostly) fully functional mental capabilities. Challenged persons do not have that same level and must be taught how critical thinking.

    BTW, he graduated with honors and made me one proud Dad.

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    1. Re:A "different" Critical Thinking Skills by isilrion · · Score: 1

      I have a son who is autistic. [...] BTW, he graduated with honors and made me one proud Dad.

      This is offtopic (modders: please mod me offtopic!) but... it seems you are a awesome dad. I have no children yet, but I sometimes worry about them having some kind of disability and not knowing how to act if that happened. Your post, short as it was, is inspiring. Thank you for sharing it! And of course... keep up the good work.

  63. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you failed, because you can't make up shit to strengthen your points. Non-factual statements like that are not going to work, they destroy whatever credibility you might have had.

    If you want to say you have a problem with social promotions or lack of failing, fine whatever, but don't make up entirely false strawman arguments.

    But you're not even correct about why Liberals oppose testing. Liberals oppose testing because it doesn't produce useful results, the tests are nothing more than a complete waste of time except to the testing industry.

    Sorry, but you really have to understand people's reasons before you can argue with them. Also the reason they don't just fail people is because it never did any good. Just ask anybody who grew up in the fifties and sixties about having older kids in their classrooms just idling till they got old enough to get a job in the mill or whatever.

    Not only are those jobs often gone (thanks to technology AND outsourcing), but what jobs remain...need education, and no, keeping an older kid in a younger kids classroom doesn't do anybody any good.

    You want to demand fixes? Great, but don't waste your time with ones that don't work.

  64. Admitting they are wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is this an admission that they know what they believe wont stand up to critical analysis?

  65. Seriously by Yosho-sama · · Score: 0

    Seriously, fuck Texas.

    --
    My kingdom for a donkey!
  66. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Aaaaaaaaah... That explains why Slashdot's right-wing contingent has their knickers in a bigger twist than usual today!
    The Supreme Court finally put an end to this 'ACA is unconstitutional' nonsense today and now you're all in a big snit about it.
    Have fun with your e-pouting!

  67. Re:Meanwhile in California by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah the usual crap. You libs still haven't come-up with a better way to see if the Teachers are actually teaching the kids, or if they are (like one of my former teachers) screwing around in class teaching karate lessons. We didn't learn crap in that class, and that would have been clear if we'd been forced to take a test, thus revealing the teacher should be fired.

    I think we should continue the testing until someone comes-up with a better measurement and THEN dump the testing. To dump the tests and replace it with ______ is illogical.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  68. Immortal Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!".

    As any good teacher knows, excellence in teaching involves:
    "The strenuous application of the Board of Education to the Seat of Learning on a regular basis".

  69. You must have read a different wikipedia article. by fredmosby · · Score: 1

    The one I read said that outcome based education was about determining what students should learn, then testing whether or not they actually have learned it. Obviously outcomes could be chosen that support progressive indoctrination, the same way they could be chosen to support conservative indoctrination. There's no fundamental reason Outcome-based Education would support a progressive agenda. Maybe they think it's progressive because it's new. If that's the case its pretty short sited to say something is bad because it is new.

    Despite what the Texas GOP says Higher Order Thinking Skills and OBE aren't the same. One is a set of skills people can learn, the other is a method of teaching.

  70. Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees by FrootLoops · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've never understood why divorce gets so much less attention than gay marriage from these people. It's an order of magnitude more "threatening" to marriage, yet the platform gives divorce all of 2 lines. The gay bits total 26 lines--actually more than that if you include things like an oblique Boy Scouts reference.

    Anyway, you some of the best parts (emphasis mine):

    Immunizations All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves or their minor children without penalty for refusing a vaccine. We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any medical database that would contain personal records of citizens without their consent.

    Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage.

    Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

    Juvenile Daytime Curfew - We strongly oppose Juvenile Daytime Curfews. Additionally, we oppose any official entity from detaining, questioning and/or disciplining our children without the consent of a child’s parent.

    Traditional Principles in Education – We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings.

    Judeo-Christian Nation – As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice. [ed: note the non sequitur]

    Traditional Military Culture – To protect our serviceman and women and ensure that America's Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.

    To be fair it's not universally awful; some of their positions are somewhat reasonable:

    Internet Access - We support a free and open internet -- free from intrusion, censorship, or control by government or private entities. Due to the inherent benefit of anonymity, the anonymity of users is not to be compromised for any reason, unless consented by the user; or by court order. We also oppose any mandates by the government to collect and retain records of our internet activity.

    Still, there's sure a lot of crazy in there.

  71. Re:Meanwhile in California by green1 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the controversy recently in my home province. A teacher was fired for giving high school students a zero mark on assignments and tests they did not complete. The school board defended the decision stating that the school had a policy of not giving out zero grades no matter what. Even if the student repeatedly refused to do any work at all. Apparently the teacher was supposed to assign the particular assignment a "did not complete" and then not include it in the student's final mark, instead averaging their other work.
    After a significant amount of public outcry the school board has agreed to "review" the policy, but as of yet they still seem to side more with the school than the teacher in question.

  72. Re:Meanwhile in California by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I am guessing that you have never taught before. OTOH, I have.
    What do you propose that a teacher teach kids, except what is on a Syllabus that supports the curriculum?

    A good teacher will convey what is needed.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  73. Re:Meanwhile in California by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Testing of kids on reading, writing, math, and science absolutely makes sense. I want to know that kids have a base knowledge before they move up the ladder. If they are not getting a decent base, then moving up does not work.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  74. slavewashing by nten · · Score: 2

    You are mostly right. The OP is also right. HOTS really is a left wing movement to indoctrinate the youth. If you research the idea it makes sense, its just the socratic method. If you look at the material privided, the training given teachers, and the example socratic questions (ironic that the teachers don't come up with them really), it really is a scheme to brainwash the public school worker bees towards the left. For instance one series of questions walks the students down the path to find (obvious) flaws in the pledge of allegience and suggest leftist improvements to it. The teacher's union is the largest supporter of the democratic party per open secrets, and it shows. It is run by people almost as progressive as Wilson was. That was a knock btw.

    But you are also right, what the GOP is really mad about isn't that the children are being brainwashed. They are just made that they aren't the group that gets to decide what the drones believe, so they are fighting back.

    Home school doesn't really help that much even if you can afford the time. Yes, they will be independent thinkers, but they won't have the networks that an expensive private school provides, which is half the point.

    The solution is acceptance of our roles as peons.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:slavewashing by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

      You are mostly right.

      You never quite say where I went wrong, so I will.

      I never actually referenced the content of the platform in question, since that would have required me to do some research I wasn't interested in doing. Instead, I opted for the old /. standby--a very general statement without specific evidence to back it up but which is nonetheless plausible, plays to the /. crowd's preconceptions, and points out someone else's flaws. And so, I got +5 insightful while (1) not knowing the first thing about HOTS, (2) not reading the article, and (3) certainly not looking up the actual Texas GOP platform to see if it had been misrepresented. That was where I was wrong, even though I'm almost certainly correct.

      By contrast, my other post on this topic is well-informed, specific, and languishing unmodded.

      And that is the problem with /. "insightful" moderation. You can just make shit up, and so long as it's appealing enough to other people, you'll win the game, regardless of how badly informed you might really be.

    2. Re:slavewashing by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I should note that my "other post" was unmodded for a while and become +5 informative after I had written the above.

  75. The Magic of Jargon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't jargon wonderful. If you read the Republican policy document (http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf) you see that terms like "Higher Order Thinking Skills" and "Outcome-Based Education" are capitalised. These are not general concepts, but specific programs in educational theory and the names could have come straight from George Orwell.

    "Higher Order Thinking Skills" (capitalised) rejects students spending time on acquiring basic skills such as spelling or simple arithmetic, but launches straight into "higher order" thinking without giving the kids the tools to do anything useful.

    "Outcome-Based Education" actually opposes things like testing. An "outcome" might be "reading a book". If you complete the book, you get credit for it. Nobody bothers checking of you actually understood its contents, that wasn't the "outcome".

    No sensible person could oppose teaching higher order thinking skills (un-capitalised) to students. But sensible people could certainly oppose the avoidance of teaching basic skills.

      = = = = =

    The "Controversial Theories" paragraph is likely to generate a lot of anxiety, but I don't see a problem. Undoubtedly this will include subjects like creationism, but so what? We teach students about Thomson's and Bohr's models of the atom, even though we know both are wrong. They are part of the journey we took to our current knowledge and help us understand later, more correct theories. We need to teach Darwin, but to be honest about its strengths and weaknesses. We also need to teach Lamark and to explain why it is wrong. In that context, it is silly to pretend that creationism doesn't exist. There are many people who believe it. Of course, in teaching it we need to teach its problems. The fossil evidence, the age of the earth and other things that contradict it.

    Good science can stand against lesser theories and students need to understand what is wrong in order to really understand what is right.

    There will inevitably be students in a science class who do not believe in Darwinism. That's OK. Tell them "This exam is on Darwin. You can believe what you like, but of you want to pass this test, you had better tell us what Darwin says".

      = = = = =

    I'm not a Republican and I'll criticise them on many policies. However in this case, the criticism is unwarranted. Except, perhaps, that they should have been less ambiguous, allowing people to misunderstand them.

    1. Re:The Magic of Jargon by emmenjay · · Score: 1
      I forgot to sign in. Comment #40489613 was mine.

      Isn't jargon wonderful. If you read the Republican policy document (http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf) you see that terms like "Higher Order Thinking Skills" and "Outcome-Based Education" are capitalised. These are not general concepts, but specific programs in educational theory and the names could have come straight from George Orwell.

      "Higher Order Thinking Skills" (capitalised) rejects students spending time on acquiring basic skills such as spelling or simple arithmetic, but launches straight into "higher order" thinking without giving the kids the tools to do anything useful.

      "Outcome-Based Education" actually opposes things like testing. An "outcome" might be "reading a book". If you complete the book, you get credit for it. Nobody bothers checking of you actually understood its contents, that wasn't the "outcome".

      No sensible person could oppose teaching higher order thinking skills (un-capitalised) to students. But sensible people could certainly oppose the avoidance of teaching basic skills.

      = = = = =

      The "Controversial Theories" paragraph is likely to generate a lot of anxiety, but I don't see a problem. Undoubtedly this will include subjects like creationism, but so what? We teach students about Thomson's and Bohr's models of the atom, even though we know both are wrong. They are part of the journey we took to our current knowledge and help us understand later, more correct theories. We need to teach Darwin, but to be honest about its strengths and weaknesses. We also need to teach Lamark and to explain why it is wrong. In that context, it is silly to pretend that creationism doesn't exist. There are many people who believe it. Of course, in teaching it we need to teach its problems. The fossil evidence, the age of the earth and other things that contradict it.

      Good science can stand against lesser theories and students need to understand what is wrong in order to really understand what is right.

      There will inevitably be students in a science class who do not believe in Darwinism. That's OK. Tell them "This exam is on Darwin. You can believe what you like, but of you want to pass this test, you had better tell us what Darwin says".

      = = = = =

      I'm not a Republican and I'll criticise them on many policies. However in this case, the criticism is unwarranted. Except, perhaps, that they should have been less ambiguous, allowing people to misunderstand them.

      Michael J

  76. Where do you suggest by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    we get a source of beings that we can use in place of trying improvements in education? I tried lab rats, but all they did is gnaw on some cheese

    Also, contrary to popular belief there HAVE been advances in our understanding of human psychology. The big one is that we've found that self-image is a fundamental restraint on ability. Specifically people act in a way that tends to reinforce their self image. There is science backing this, and best of all it passes the 'truthiness' test (worthless, I know, but at least the tea baggers mostly stay in the woodwork when I start talking about this).

    This is where the 'precious little snowflake' movement in education came from. This might just shock you, but children are impressionable little blighters. If you want them to succeed (you do want them to, don't you?) then you need to impress on them a self image that includes success. People will throw up their arms at this and say 'What about Peter Principle!?'. The Peter Principle is a gross simplification of human psychology trotted out to excuse budgets cuts.

    Look at the most arrogant fool you know. The one who's completely incompetent yet supremely confident. Ask yourself, when you strip away the bluster, don't you find he's just overcompensating for deeper insecurities? The point of OBE and similar education efforts is to raise people without those insecurities. In short, there's a difference between arrogance and positivity. Teachers spend years learning it. Could you honestly say that you've even spent as much time to consider it as you did to write your post? My dear /.tter... I think you just fell victim to Peter's.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  77. Re:Interesting rant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure it wasnt a feeding.

  78. The critical words by Quila · · Score: 1

    which focus on behavior modification

    As a parent, think about that. Others want to practice behavior modification on your children without your consent. Wouldn't you support those who would prevent teachers and administrators from doing that?

    I guarantee you that "critical thinking skills" will NOT be applied to subjects dear to liberals. Conversely, if activist religious conservatives permeated the educational system, such skills wouldn't be applied to their sacred cows either.

  79. Re:Meanwhile in California by wmbetts · · Score: 1

    You can have a great teacher and still have a majority of the kids fail if they all have shit heads for parents that refuse to work with them. That's another big issue we have in this country. A lot of parents have the belief that it's 100% the schools responsibility to teach the kids and they shouldn't have to do anything. This especially true in low income areas. The truth is a good portion of eduction happens at home and without that the kids education is handicapped.

    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
  80. Re:Vilified only because it's the GOP by Microlith · · Score: 2

    Please. Can you even come up with a scenario that would mirror this?

    I've heard nothing nearly as insane come out of any other party, let alone the democrats. The GOP, nationwide, currently has monopolies not just on crazy, but stupid as well.

  81. Re:Vilified only because it's the GOP by Tancred · · Score: 2

    Uh, no. The Slashdot crowd has its flaws, but cheering on opposition to critical thinking itself isn't one of them.

  82. Down with Socrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Socrates made critical thinking the standard by which Western Civilization achieved its greatest successes. The Republican aren't interested in successful civilization just some successful individuals and will happily undermine civilization to achieve this. Dumbing down critical thinking may buy them a few years but in the end the most they can hope to achieve is taking most of us down so a few can claim success.

  83. Fixed beliefs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evolve or die, Darwinism at it's finest.

  84. Re:Meanwhile in California by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "The DNC educational platform is teaching that 2+2==3 is "not wrong" and the kid should be given praise because he tried hard. B for effort."

    Citation needed.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  85. Not quite by Tancred · · Score: 1

    I can agree somewhat in that they didn't categorically object to teaching of critical thinking, though their objection to challenging of fixed beliefs comes quite close. So they could have been narrower in their objection. And they could have stated support for teaching of "real" critical thinking if it was meant as a narrow objection.

  86. Texans vs. Real People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Example: jaywalking
    Situation: kid wants to cross the street by jaywalking; mother directs it to the crosswalk half a mile away. Kid would like to know why it can't cross the street right there.

    Texan: cause it's the law. Kid: but why? Texan: Cause it's the law dammit! Now shut up and do as you are told!!

    Real Person: because crossing the street with the high speed traffic on it is dangerous, you might get hit or force a driver off the road. Drivers expect to potentially encounter people wanting to cross the street at crosswalks. That's why the government made it a rule.

    This is another example of critical thinking. "Because" is not enough. "Because that is the rule" is not enough. Question everything. You might just find that the original reason no longer applies, but people still follow the rule slavishly. Example: an acquintance wasn't doing anything on her computer while she was burning a DVD, it might interfere with the burning process and cause a coaster. Bzzzzt. With SmartBurn et al. a buffer underrun will cause a controlled stop in burning, when the buffer is filled it will continue (within the spec) where it left off and merrily continue.

    1. Re:Texans vs. Real People by nopainogain · · Score: 0

      i grew up in a christian "because i said so" family... still turned into an atheist with critical thinking skills.

    2. Re:Texans vs. Real People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question everything...except that which gives you unchecked power over other individuals (i.e. Marxism and everything else that your professors taught).

      --

      Waste your mod points here.

  87. OBWE itself is not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "While OBE implementations often incorporate a host of many progressive pedagogical models and ideas, such as reform mathematics, block scheduling, project-based learning and whole language reading, OBE in itself does not specify or require any particular style of teaching or learning. Instead, it requires that students demonstrate that they have learned the required skills and content. "

    Your implementation may scks because it is politized and whatnot, but OBE in itself seems fine. In fact if you read the criticism of OBE, and remove the politic bullshit, there isn't much left.

  88. Not quite right by aepervius · · Score: 2

    They prretend that HOTS is a relabelling of OBE and oppose it because of that. But they being politician, I would not be surprised they are against HOTS because it imply thinking, but rather than openly admit it, they cast it as an OBE reform. We have an old saying around here "If you want to get ride of a dog, pretend he has the rabbies then you shoot it".

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Not quite right by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      OBE has been around in TX for 30+ years, and has been credited with an improvement over that time, even with funding cuts under Bush and co. Anything that helps public education survive the deliberate Republican sabotage is a Bad Thing (tm), and must be stopped.

  89. Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a big supporter of adopting American English as the official language, and I'm a Pirate Party supporter.

    The reason for this is to ensure that people cannot claim some "right" to be served in "their own" language. Or say that they "didn't know" because they "no habla" and get away with it because it wasn't provided in Language X. Promoting American English from a de facto official language to a codified official language prevents problems and costs.

    This doesn't make speaking Spanish illegal. This doesn't stop TV stations from broadcasting 'en espanol' as well. All it does is keep everything official in ONE language; no need for interpreters, translators, 10 different language versions of the same documents, etc. etc. Ask Canada or Belgium how much it costs to have everything available in English AND French... and maybe soon in a number of First Nations languages. Ask the European Union how much it costs to have all the European Parliament stuff translated. ALL out of taxpayers' pockets.

  90. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently the teacher was supposed to assign the particular assignment a "did not complete" and then not include it in the student's final mark, instead averaging their other work.

    Hah. Guess they've been hitting the "fatties" pretty hard ("toe up") when they came up with that rule.

    1. Take a class.
    2. Wait for the "easy" assignments, complete only those ones and get an A+
    3. Don't turn in anything else or write tests.
    4. Do so for all classes
    5. Graduate on the Principal's List.

  91. Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees by arose · · Score: 1

    We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage.

    I can't imagine a minister managing to cram all of the subject in with the vows, but I support them trying to make it happen anyway...

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  92. Re:Meanwhile in California by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah the usual crap. You libs still haven't come-up with a better way to see if the Teachers are actually teaching the kids, or if they are (like one of my former teachers) screwing around in class teaching karate lessons. We didn't learn crap in that class, and that would have been clear if we'd been forced to take a test, thus revealing the teacher should be fired.

    ...or the Principal should have stuck their head around the door occasionally and noticed that the teacher was goofing off in lessons. No, you're right, its better to completely distort kids education and waste hours of valuable school time cramming for multi-choice tests with no relationship to real-world skills... just for the sake of catching the occasional karate-mad teacher.

    Anyway, the problem is not having periodic tests as such, its the quality of the tests (which only reward recalling little fragments of knowledge and techniques) and the disproportionate importance based on them.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  93. Re:Meanwhile in California by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The testing that we do in Colorado is 3-10, of which it is reading, writing, math (and science for 5, 8, and 10).
    Now, what exactly in the tests are distorting to children?

    You will note that there is nothing in there on the soft items: social studies; PE; art; Drivers Ed; etc.
    So, I would love to hear how you think that math can be distorted in primary school? Keep in mind that it is SIMPLE math. It does not even hit algebra in 10th.
    Likewise, WRT reading, what can be distorted? Comprehension? Speed?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  94. ok, so other than the name of their imaginary god. by nopainogain · · Score: 0

    what differentiates Texas from Iran again? oil...no, they both have lots of that... subjugated women--check opposes views that might undermine their mythology-based-belief-system...check oh right,, gentleman's clubs, whiskey, half-naked women, and pickup trucks....THAT is what separates Texas from Iran. I'm good, I figured it out on my own, thanks anyway.

  95. dirty old men spanking cheerleaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bunch of fat GOPers want the opportunity to spank hot cheerleaders.

  96. send your kids tio school as atheist communists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I lived in texas and had kids, I would send them to school with pro-Castro and pro-Lenin t-shirts on. I would argue that this is a deep held family belief and we don't need critical thinking skills to get them to challenge the ideas.

    I would also have them form a branch of the Flat Earth Society and demand a school sponsor.

    1. Re:send your kids tio school as atheist communists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.27bslash6.com/flash.html

  97. Context. Its important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Summary is FUD, selectively quoting a huffington article that links to a misleading reddit headline.

    Actual statement ( http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf ):
    "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

    The full statement clearly indiciates they oppose education programs meant to change opinions/behaviours.
    Stop judging based on comments out of context.

    1. Re:Context. Its important. by A.Gideon · · Score: 1

      The full statement clearly indiciates they oppose education programs meant to change opinions/behaviours. Stop judging based on comments out of context.

      So education should never change opinions or behaviors?

  98. Jumping the shark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems Slashdot has jumped the shark, at least the readers have.

    The headline turned HOTS(Higher Order Thinking Skills) into higher critical thinking. These are two completely different things.
    Maybe you should use some of your critical thinking skills instead of blasting others for not having any,

    And sadly, most here will miss completely the irony of this article, paired with statements from slashdot readers.

  99. overblown by d3matt · · Score: 1

    According to my Mom who was on the platform committee, this plank was added at the last minute without a lot of debate by one person with an agenda. Also, at one point instead of saying "we are opposed to human cloning" it said "we are opposed to humans"... I honestly wish that one made it as it would have made for better lulz...

    --
    I am d3matt
  100. Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    >>...because they just don't make bigots like they used to.

    >Not for lack of trying...

    That's the purpose of this particular clause. Their getting annoyed by all those school teachings that make it harder to raise your kids to be as blinkered in their bigotry as you are.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  101. Re:Meanwhile in California by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Neither of those scenarios would prove either of the things you propose.
    Nearly all the kids pass would prove the teacher cheated.
    Nearly all the kids fail would prove the test was above appropriate standards OR that the teacher sucked- but not determine which.

    See real classrooms follow what statisticians call a "normal" distribution. If the teacher is good and the test is on standard you will always see the exact same end result (all other things being equal):
    25% of students fail.
    25% of students get over 75%
    The other 50% pass with average marks.

    Any other distribution means something is wrong. More than 50% average and exceptional students ? Test was too easy or the teacher cheated.
    Less than that: test was too hard or the teacher incompetent.

    Your version of the result cannot actually exist, but even if you adapt them to the variations from normal that I just cited then they still don't prove anything about the teacher - not until you can somehow independently prove that the level of the test was correct for the material.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  102. Liberal arts by hessian · · Score: 1

    The way to teach critical thinking is to teach the liberal arts.

    When kids learn to analyze literature, and philosophy, and to debate, they learn all of these skills.

    The "critical thinking" courses have become propaganda.

    Sadly, so have most liberal arts courses. You learn more about race, gender and homosexuality than the book you're studying.

    Have we gone full Soviet in the USA?

  103. Its fairly simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people want to keep others from thinking for themselves. Sheep are a lot more likely to follow than to question. It would be a travesty for some political parties for the U.S to cease to be a country of sheep and have more and more generations actually think for themselves and make their own decisions.

    Always remember.. A person is smart, a group of people are ignorant.

  104. They oppose anyone other than the parent indoctrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They oppose anyone other than the parent indoctrinating them.

    You know, the same reason they want homeschooling to be unregulated.

  105. Re:Meanwhile in California by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Would that be the same 50 million people that these CEO's previously refused to give coverage to on the grounds of pre-existing conditions ?

    The old joke goes: "A bank is an institution that will loan you money provided you can prove you don't need to borrow it."

    Apparently in America a health-insurance company is an institution that will cover the cost of healthcare provided you can prove you don't need any healthcare.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  106. Weren't they demanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weren't they demanding "Teach the controversy!" earlier?

  107. The future is "friendly" (tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America will soon be a nation of religious people with an economy run by Asian graduates. The question is: will military decision makers be chosen based on the depth of their religious beliefs or their critical thinking skills?

    1. Re:The future is "friendly" (tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which are you, xenocrat or xenophobe? Human nature is such that no other choice is possible. Remember, your right to come to those conclusions can only exist in the West. Asian graduates will not allow you that liberty, for they will 'bury you alive' once they have the chance

      --

      Tyranny is dominant; liberty is recessive, therefore liberty must be cultivated and protected.

  108. Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They only oppose monitoring their internet activity because they don't want anyone to know about all the gay, pre-marital military porn they watch.

  109. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  110. Re:Meanwhile in California by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

    >>>A lot of parents have the belief that it's 100% the schools responsibility to teach the kids

    Um. Yeah. So? I'm paying my school over $200,000 in direct school taxes over my lifetime. So yeah I expect them to TEACH my kids, just as I expect Comcast to give me working television and internet, or my college to give me an education. The customer has every right to demand results from the money being handed over.

    Well whatever.
    Just keep repeating those DNC.NBC & union talking points about how "evil" it is to test kids and find-out if they learned anything. Heck why have grades at all? When 12 years is up, just hand them a diploma. ;-) LOL

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  111. Is this a joke? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    There not going to teach critical thinking? That doesn't make sense. Why not teach that the earth is flat or at the centre of the universe, sounds right up the alley.

  112. Re:Meanwhile in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just keep repeating those DNC.NBC & union talking points about how "evil" it is to test kids and find-out if they learned anything.

    Troll64 making a baseless accusation. Gee, how shocking. :)

  113. OT: shell shock vs. PTSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its like how they changed...shell shock into post traumatic stress disorder

    I've been out of the Army a long time, but AIUI, PTSD was never a replacement term for shell shock. Shell shock describes temporary disorientation caused by close explosions of bombs, mortars, grenades, etc. PTSD represents long-term psychological effects rooted in the violence of battle, and is not at all limited to explosions as a cause. The use of "shell shock" in the civilian vernacular to describe PTSD should not be construed to mean "they changed" the term.

    Hmmm, captcha is "dynamite".

    - T

    1. Re:OT: shell shock vs. PTSD by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I'd like to add to that.

      In the Canadian Forces, the majority of soldiers with PTSD were never in a battle or war zone. About 75% of the cases from soldiers serving in Canada.

      Don't quote me on that, though. I heard it through word of mouth, from a course officer, when I was on course.

  114. Texans against critical thinking by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 0

    Well HERE'S a surprise...

    --
    Grar II
  115. Real critical thinking begins when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You decide your plan is to convince the authorities to lift your sentence and get them to give you a diploma. Escaping at 16 was the best thing I ever did.

  116. Galileo 2.0 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    will likely be born in Texas.

  117. Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "...We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America's legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders' writings.

    Does that mean they'll skip the Treaty of Tripoli in history class, pretend it never existed?

  118. Few if any public schools teach critical thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real issue is that few public schools teach critical thinking, and few people reading this thread even know what I am talking about.

    The post is propaganda meant to convince you that conservatives are anti-education and that liberals are pro-education.

    But, the Democrats don't want you to know how to think critically either, otherwise you'd pick up on the fact that slashdot is little more than a propaganda machine for various liberal ideologies. (Yeah, really...)

    If you understand the disciplines of formal and informal logic, you may know how to think critically.

    These disciplines are still taught in Christian private schools.

    But, the average public schooler has been taught watered down critical thinking... along the lines of determining that 1 pound of butter that costs $2 is a better deal than 4 kilograms of butter for the same price.

  119. Re:it's easier to think what someone telks you to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Confused why the Democrats' platform is posted on "marketoracle.co.uk"

  120. Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's odd to see this attributed to Republicans, given the Left's utter dominance of the educational system, and the fact that it instills beliefs contrary to logic and to critical thinking.

    All the "GOP" has to gain with such a policy is the placation of the religious right.

    All of the "Left" relies on such policies (well, that and voter fraud) entirely..If everyone could think critically, the Democrat party would be destroyed instantly.

  121. CTS is a registered trademark of every Marxist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When an individual rejects traditional Western values of the bestowing of rights upon individuals by a higher authority beyond the reach of govenment, individualism, private property, voluntary exchange, virtue and the knowledge that accountability to a higher authority after death, and adopts collectivist, statist, Utopian, you-are-merely-a-cog-in-a-machine values, THEN AND ONLY THEN are critical thinking skills exercised. That is the message; prove otherwise.

    --

    Tertiary education is where individuals enter and collectivists emerge.

  122. Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with the "challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced" part? I thought that was one of, if not the most central tenet of the scientific method, i.e. ideas are to be regarded as theories which are to be continually challenged and improved by incorporating new data. I understand that the intent is to deny evolution and consideration of the effects of burning fossil fuels on the planet's climate, but the way it is stated seems harmless enough.

    --
    Social Credit would solve everything...
  123. Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

    I have three problems with that plank and two with the bit you quoted.
    (1) Before your quote, they singled out two particular theories out of all scientific theories, generalizing their statements to "theories such as" those two. There's no obvious pattern besides "theories that Christian fundamentalists don't like", considering the mound of evidence in favor of evolution.
    (2) "challengeable scientific theories" is potentially dangerous if the challenges are given undue weight. For instance, you can present a huge amount of evidence against Newton's laws--"Newton's laws say this, but let's look at experiments A through Z that all contradict them." That's perfectly true, but Newton's laws are so "close" to true that in public school their faults should barely be mentioned.
    (3) Everything is challengeable to some extent. What challenges should be presented? Some crackpot creationist's that no mainstream scientists agree with?

    A strict, reasonable reading of that plank or the part you quoted is fine, but that's certainly not intended.

  124. Read it again (or for the first time) by Tancred · · Score: 1

    The GOP platform clearly says they oppose "critical thinking skills", implying that's a relabeling of OBE. And the reasons are that it's not good to challenge parental authority and fixed beliefs. You really want to defend that? If you want to defend the Texas GOP, you can still claim is was a mistake and they don't believe that.

  125. i got this controversial thing by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    most 1960s psychologists don't like me for it, nor does any other kind of 1960 remnant, this thing where it says the only, but the one and only ever, reason when you can 'hit' a kid, is when it hits you. I feel like learning that you can get hurt when hitting people is part of learning. However, in any other case, any kind of physical punishment is strictly wrong and forbidden since it shows the wrong pattern. And i'm talking about parents. If any teacher ever were to hit one of my kids. I'd personally go hit him back, i'm sure of that. Teachers teach their subjects, it's not their place to educate beyond that, definitely not their place to kick. If parents don't have time to educate their kids, they shouldn't have them. If they lack the skills, they shouldn't have them. If they lack the means, they shouldn't have them. You need a drivers license to prove you can drive a car without killing but any idiot can accidentaly and prematurely ejaculate at the wrong time in the wrong place and get as many kids as he wants. Bad parenting probably kills more than traffic in the long run. (i know, always the car analogies, they're so easy to make)

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?