Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

You are right about this jack. One reason I think that our nation is so appallingly ignorant on this issue is that public education teaches the opposite. Do they teach the foundations of Capitalism in public school? Certainly not.

This is, of course, probably mostly by design. Proponents of public education would rather not help the next generation of stock brokers and bankers and entrepenuers get a solid foundation early on. Of course, public education focuses on being ‘public’ by its nature.

This from a party that wants Creationism in Biology Classes!!!

What hypocrites!!!

The reason no one is saving is because your Capitalist Society has turned this country into the ultimate materialistic value system!!! The perfect example are those idiots in conservative Tennessee who got FEMA checks by mistake. What did these low-income yokels spend their money on? GUNS, DVDs and TOYS!!!

As for the foolish claim that only celebrities become deadbeats, your idols Conrad Black and Ken Lay are in prison now. At least Liberal Celebrities don’t bankrupt innocent people!!! Your Republican Heroes defrauded millions!!!

I really find it demeaning that Republicans once again cast the blame on Liberals for their own failures. I guess with GM putting thousands out of work there is not much the GOP can do except sling mud.

Sad.

Um, Aldous, you are making even less sense than usual. Conrad Black is not an American, so using him as an example of “American Capitalism” is absurd. Further, he is not in prison. And neither is Ken Lay, and what GM’s troubles have to do with any of this I don’t know—and you don’t either. Sometimes it helps to take a warm bath, light some candles, put on some easily-listening and then come back to the computer in a more relaxed state of mind/ :)

We are a welfare state…why should people behave like “ants”, it’s hard work. Why work hard when you can spend more then you have, then you can let the Libs take good care of you.

The GM debacle is hardly news…It’s been coming for a long time. Between prior union demands that mangement caved on, health care costs, poor management, and the size of the company to begin with, it’s no wonder there are problems.

If companies make poor decisions, they pay for it.
It’s quite simple. and if you choose to work for a company that that makes poor decisions. You are gambling with your job. If these workers didn’t see that this was coming, they truly are liberals.

discerner,

How ‘bout those of us who haven’t chosen to work for such a company, but live in a city that has chosen to build it’s economy around such a company? The plant local to us was spared, but that’s only because we’ve poured millions of dollars of public funds into keeping GM afloat locally. It’s pathetic. All that money could have gone to attracting businesses that weren’t so precarious.

Eric writes:
“Do they teach the foundations of Capitalism in public school? Certainly not.”

Actually, they do. I know. I’ve taught it personally. I’ve been credentialed as an English & Social Studies teacher in three different states. I can recognize it too, thanks to an MBA and 6 years experience as a stockbroker for a major Wall Street firm.

Eric writes:
“Proponents of public education would rather not help the next generation of stock brokers…”

Actually, they do. A routine lesson plan for a quarter is creating a stock portfolio. It’s pretty fun, and the student learn a great deal about equities.

What happened, Eric? Home schooled? How on earth did you miss these topics? They are routine parts of public education.

GM got in trouble because healthcare costs were insanely expensive. What you forget to mention is that the other Auto Companies don’t have health insurance for their workers at all. Now, even the Retirement Benefits are being rendered null and void.

Welcome to the red column’s America.

Jack,

You seriously think it is unreasonable to treat renters “fairly”? Encouraging home ownership is a good thing, but why do it by punishing those who can’t afford it?

GM, eh Discerner? Bush’s economic policies are really a boon for manufacturing jobs aren’t they? And how about the great work he’s done to bring health care costs under control. But I guess it must all be Clinton’s fault, huh?

phx8:

Now, now… I am sure Eric gets a great education in the Kansas State Education System. All their curriculum was recently approved by Pat Robertson himself!!!

Stephanie…I agree…

Aldous…Welcome to reality…

Burt…Bush hasn’t helped, but the problem is a lot more then 5 years old…

Jack,
“But if all this is so simple, how come all those grasshoppers don’t do it?”

Because life isn’t fair. Because sometimes people have horrible accidents, or phsical disabilities, or mental impairments. Ever see the medical problems for a random group of people, the kind of problems a teacher is made aware of with a class of students? You’d be amazed at how many issues are out there.

Some people are lazy. Some are stupid. Others are incompetent. But let’s not talk about managers. Some people undergo awful experiences, such as some young people are undergoing in Iraq; experiences so awful, these people will never be able to function in society.

Guy who worked for my wife came back from Iraq. She had to fire him. Anger issues. Couldn’t function in the workplace. Oregon is a ‘right to work’ state. That means anybody can be fired for anything, as long as it’s not age or sex discrimination. Too bad, grasshopper.

Ok, cue of Lou Reed’s “Men of Good Fortune.”

Pardon another restatement of the obvious, but capitalism must be blended with socialist ideas in order to work at its best. Compassion and decency demand no less.

Jack,
If all Americans were like Ants than who is the Queen that we serve? Freedom and Freewill is one of the Principles that America is founded upon. Take away that just to force the Grasshopper to accept the Ants way of life and we lose as a Nation and Society.

Phx8,
A single quarter and in some cases less does not make a person a master of Investing and using Credit wisely. This long standing argument as well as the one that it is the parents responsibility to teach their children the vaulve of a dollar is junk.

Why is it we require that every student take 12 years of math and english, but only one quarter of the knowledge that they will be judge on by society for living a simple productive life? What is the number one reason giving by most dropouts for quiting school? Why is it that all societies protect this knowledge and wisdom and have reserved it for only the social elite until recently?

Other than ignorance and stupidity, I can not think of a single good reason why our public education system should not be required to teach every high school student 4 years or 12 Quarters of Personal Investment & Financial Planning as this would be needed regardless of which profession the student seeks once an adult. Can you? Or should those being paid minimum wage in a career that they enjoy be denied the same access to commerce that the people who rely on that same person to survive?

If you remember correctly, prior to 2001 and President Bush, America’s CNBC and other financial news outlets were in the process of teaching the general public some of how the Market works and how to make money by investng in certain stocks. Even today, we have CNN and Fox focusing some news time toward this very goal of an educated general public.

However I have a question for both of you. If our Elders in the 70’s would of told us some 40 years ago that every American could of been a millionaire by now would you of believed them? Ant, Grasshopper, or other; do they not get to keep their Freewill? Or must they sell it for Wealth?

Henry,
I agree. Public education should spend more time on the basics of financial management. I attended high school at one of the top public schools in the country. Lucky me. It’s not like I somehow earned it, it’s not as if my hardworking grasshopper nature put me there. Just luck of the draw. But even then, education in the basics of financial management was sparse. If you have ever seen “Leave it to Beaver,” there’s a great episode where Beaver invests in Jet-Electro stock. But as fine as that lesson on capitalism and investing was at the time, awareness of what it takes to provide for one’s self was pretty limited.

Henry, I can tell you that the students in today’s high schools receive considerably better eductions in this area. There are still areas in public education which make no sense; why teach a teenage student with brilliant language skills hour after hour of Calculus?

Finally, there are no long-term simple solutions for building wealth. My 20 year old son declared that he would save 10% of every paycheck, and soon be rich enough to retire. He’s right, you know. That’s all it takes, just saving a little money.

Ah, sweet sassy molasses! If only life were that simple!!!

If only relatives didn’t die of awful, expensive diseases. If only children didn’t have learning disabilites, and require a parent to be home full-time. iF only there were no such things as wheelchairs! If only we could all be free of addictions and weaknesses and personal flaws. How easy it would be!

phx8,

Actually, they do. I know. I�€™ve taught it personally. I�€™ve been credentialed as an English & Social Studies teacher in three different states. I can recognize it too, thanks to an MBA and 6 years experience as a stockbroker for a major Wall Street firm.

You teach capitalism? Oui. Do you teach them how ‘the man’ enslaves the masses?

Pardon another restatement of the obvious, but capitalism must be blended with socialist ideas in order to work at its best. Compassion and decency demand no less.

…ah I see

Actually, they do. A routine lesson plan for a quarter is creating a stock portfolio. It�€™s pretty fun, and the student learn a great deal about equities.

What happened, Eric? Home schooled? How on earth did you miss these topics? They are routine parts of public education.

Not counting the math problems in third grade that use pictures of coins, I graduated from High School in 1989 and never once had any financial education in public school.

Civics yes. Home Economics yes. PE yes. Financial education no. None. Nada. Zip.

Eric,
I was pretty snarky, I admit, posting with the intennt of provoking you to answer. And before I forget, if anyone reading this clicks “About” at the top of the column, and clicks on Eric’s bio, it’s truly ‘eeeexcellent, above and beyond anyone else posting on Watchblog. No kidding, Eric, fine sense of humor. Perhaps you missed your calling. I’m a Simpsons fanatic. But back to the subject…
I graduated in ‘75. Being ‘so old’ practically requires an apology, but what can I say? Like Steve Martin, I was born a poor black child…
School districts in various parts of the country vary in terms of quality. Duh. Derrrrrr. But these days, most public schools are pretty good about teaching kids practical matters like saving, and investing.

“Do you teach them how ‘the man’ enslaves the masses?” you ask.”

Well, I haven’t taught since 1998. But I love kids, and I loved teaching. As a matter of personal philosophy, I’ve never been interested in imposing my views on others- some sort of curse of desire for conciliation, I suppose. I am far more interested in provoking others to think for themseves. That’s not as easy as it sounds! In an odd twist of fate, I now make multiples more in sales relating to computer technology & networks & programming than I would make as a teacher; I make more money than if I were starting at the top of the compensation grid for teachers in Oregon. It may not be right, or just, but… there you go.

True story. I taught an entire year of World History without the students knowing if I were a Dem or Rep, liberal or conservative. How did I do that while surrounded by dozens of inquisitive adolescents? Easy. I’m not interested in getting people to mirror my point of view, like I said earlier. I’m about teaching people to think for themselves.

To return to topic in a vague way: even the ‘50’s “Leave it to Beaver” included an episode on the stock market.

Anyhoo, I cannot account for your personal experience with the teaching of capitalism in HS. But I can respect intelligence and ability, and I do.

To paraphrase: General Tommy Franks said something really funny about neocon Douglas Feith:

“He’s the stupidest f****** man on the face of the earth. And I have to meet with him every day of my life, first thing in the morning.”

So when are you going to stop listening to talking points posted by jackasses? I’m guessing you live with people who move in slow motion, every day. It’s frustrating, isn’t it? Damn it, Eric! Don’t follow. Take the lead! Think for yourself. You’re old enough. It’s time to forget others. They weren’t that great anyway. Who knows, great thing might happen! Say what you think, regardless of pre-planned, dictated issues put forth by mediocrities. Why do you think David Remer tolerates your posts that occasionally border on flames? I’m pretty sure he doesn’t agree with your politics anymore than I do. (David, please forgive the extemely assumptive behavior!). The reason is simple. Personally, I want the best, in agreement or disagreement.

The time to follow is over, Eric. Stop messing around, man, stop following talking points, and lead!

Phx8,
So as one from “The Old School of Thought” can you explain to me why even in today’s environment our schools are not mandated to teach financial Investment and Management? Having attempted to get the school boards and other civil leaders interested in adding the subject in the mid 90’s, I was surprised at the (input good word for racist) attitude of those who set on the boards and have influence over the Powers-to-Be.

Now I know I live in North Carolina and that some Rednecking still exists in our system. However, or better put because of our Elders deregulating the financial system in the 80’s to many citizens do not know what it is like to be able to save their weekly paycheck at 7%. However, that is only a part of the picture.

You say that you have thaught World History so I have a question for you. Have you ever overlayed the different Era’s of Written History (Civil, Political, and Law) and compared them to different Religions and their Ideology? Although not a teacher myself, I am amazed at both the Contrast and Reflection that is carried on through Human Events and what is known about how all people lived on Earth.

Although I still can not find out much about Sanskrit and the Great Masonic War of 15,000 B.C., the single most interesting part of history that is void of information is the era around 10500 B.C. Any idea where to begin to find the Mosonic Orders History during that time?

While I give the Chirtains their due, I do believe every American needs to learn the true history that can show how Humanity’s Civilizations all strive to do what their leaders believe is right. Strange is it not that The Founding Fathers of America added to our form of government “Proof” that one acts and knows what is right? IMO President Bush and Company is trying very hard to lower that standard and that can not stand.

And a quick note on jobs, just what every happened to the idea that America was building a Service Base Economy so that others could prosper through manufactering? Now that the bench mark has been moved suddenly some Americans want our plants back? Maybe some of The Elders were Right in the 60’s when they said that there is a line America does not want to cross.

Phx8,

Perhaps you can come to NJ and become a curriculum advisor??? Or NY, or PA, or FL? The reason I mention these states is I’ve had the pleasure of living in all four, and having my sons educated in those states’ education systems. Guess what? There is absolutely no education in personal finances in those states. Come to think of it, there aren’t courses in economics offered, either. While I find it admirable that you taught economic theory, is it possible that this was because you were one of those exemplary educators who went above the call? I know I had teachers with a passion for educating (for which I am eternally thankful), and teachers who were only there for the paycheck (from who I learned absolutely nothing). Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the more prevalant attitude…

Everyone else,

As for Eric’s premise, that wealth is not a factor of income, I would have to agree. I was career military (not a high-income profession), moved into retail management for a few years, and have been disabled for the past three years. I’ve never made more than $40,000 in a year, and raised three children. Yet, my personal wealth is substantial. Why?

Because allowed neither myself, nor my family, to be overcome by consumerism. We do not buy a new car every year. We do not race out to own the newest sneaker, MP3 player, cell phone, and so forth. My car is a 1998 Camry; my wife drives a 2000 Jetta. My sons were not given vehicles when they came of age. Instead, I helped them choose clunkers that they could pay for. That’s lesson number 1.

I invested wisely, avoiding the latest “hot-stock” and putting my money into equities with proven track records. As a result, my wealth is secure and continues to grow. My return rates are not spectacular, but then again, I also didn’t lose everything when the Internet bubble burst. That’s lesson number 2.

I own my home. I read a post here where somebody claimed that some people cannot buy their own homes. I have to ask, why would that be? The only reasons I can see are 1) they overspent on needless things; outstripping their income and ruining their credit and 2) they have failed to save prudently for a down payment. There are mortgage companies out there where with as little as $5,000 down you can buy a house; $5,000 is not very much money. That is lesson number 3.

Eric,

Tax credits are a very inefficient way of promoting wealth creation, although they are an excellent way of promoting wealth preservation. The reason is simple: the vast majority of people pay their taxes annually, or are at least only aware of paying their taxes on April 15. Offering an annual credit for investing is not going to change attitudes and behaviors on a daily basis. Nor will it do anything for those who have spent themselves into the poorhouse and now wish to reverse their fortunes. Can the government help?

Certainly, but only by providing the tools that can enable people to change their habits. First, I would reverse the recent bankruptcy reforms. If someone is broke, they’re broke. Not allowing those people to discharge their debts only keeps them in debt, and does little to help them build wealth. If a creditor was stupid enough to allow exorbitant debts to be accrued, then they have no reason to expect government protection. Second, consumer credit has been far too easy to obtain. The entire lending system needs to be reformed. When and why income and wealth were removed as a credentials for obtaining credit cards is beyond me. Likewise, I am certain that I am not the only one here who routinely cleans out my inbox (and snail mailbox) from credit offers, with ridiculously lax requirements and equally high interest rates. These are predatory financing schemes that target the very people whose spending habits need to be changed. Finally, there needs to be a Value Added Tax on non-essentials, making those items more expensive and more difficult to own. Imagine if the price of consumer electronics, designer clothes, and the like were 15% higher? Those in lower-income brackets would still desire those items, but discover the necessity of saving to enable a purchase.

Phx8:

I attended high school at one of the top public schools in the country. Lucky me. It�€™s not like I somehow earned it, it�€™s not as if my hardworking grasshopper nature put me there. Just luck of the draw.

I attended good schools, and my children attend good schools. But it has not been luck of the draw by any means. It has been by specific choice, along with a level of good fortune.

I’ve CHOSEN to live in an area known for its excellent schools, and I pay high property taxes for this privilege. I am fortunate to be financially able to swing it, though it is certainly a sacrifice for me. I know friends who have nicer things, nicer cars, take longer and more expensive vacations etc. One couple in particular has essentially chosen, by their financial decisions, to live nicely in an area that has decent schools but not great schools. The husband makes a similar income to mine, though the mother does not work outside the home. My wife has always found jobs that allowed her to raise our children, but also to provide much needed income. She could earn much more, but wouldn’t have the flexibility required to raise our children as well. (Note: One of the jobs was cleaning houses—which some might seem too menial for someone with a college degree, but my wife found it paid well and provided great flexibility. The point being that her job did not require any special skills, other than a willingness to work)

My point is simply that we all make financial choices. Some of us have better options as a result of our hard work, the preparation from our parents and good fortune. But we all have a measure of control. Better to focus on showing people the choices they have, and the ramifications of those choices, than to allow people to feel limited in their options.

Jack, I agree with everything you said. Even the part about you stating the obvious. Except the capital gains tax. Good post.

I saw the results of a GOP survey recently.

Only 34% of Republicans believe the party’s goal “is to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens.”

49% insist the Republican Party’s main purpose is “to promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage and the life of the unborn.”

Maybe that’s why your Republican Party isn’t encouraging wealth creation among the general populace. They’re more interested in peeking into people’s bedrooms. Just a thought.

Hi Jack,

I liked your article. Many in our society tend to focus on money at the expense of focusing on a full and enriching life.

The right seems to be against proper education these days. The President has advocated teaching that the earth is flat in science classes.

My 9th grade son told me that his teacher told the class that the State Board of Ed. said that teaching the Greeks and Romans in History of Civlization classes isn’t necessary for the students to understand government.

The reason that the State Board doesn’t think the Greeks and Romans are necessary, aside from the fact that they must be idiots, is that they don’t think it’s necessary to know about Greeks and Romans to pass the standardized tests.

Republicans want teachers to teach students to take standardized tests (“No Child Left Behind”. This is an extremely low form of education. Good teaching involves a passion for ideas rather than a passion for standardized tests.

LouisXIV

Good teaching involves a passion for ideas rather than a passion for standardized tests.

Teaching cannot be just about “passion for ideas”(ID?), it has to be about factual information that is tested for basic mastery. Teaching is also about learning “how” to think critically. (most schools don’t have a clue about doing that)

Great Teachers are passionate about imparting knowledge and wisdom to their students regardless of the subjest matter.

If you do not test, you do not know how the student is doing. California was doing these tests back in the 60’s (I was there) and a lot more often then most schools test now. I think they should test more.

When students graduate, Employers and Colleges need to know that these students have the basics. (ever wonder why colleges have remedial classes in English and Math?)

Ideas are great and they are needed, but education based on ideas alone will put students in the soup line when they get older.

Hi Discerner,

“Teaching cannot be just about �€œpassion for ideas�€(ID”

You’re right. I neglected to mention that a deep understanding of the subject is necessary for good teaching.

“If you do not test, you do not know how the student is doing.”

I’m not against testing. Teaching students to take standardized tests at the expense of good teaching doesn’t work though.

I’m all for teaching literature, math, and science. These subjects should be taught as powerful ideas though rather than as a means to pass standardized tests.

Standardized tests aren’t a worthy educational goal….testing is necessary but it should be a means to an end (understanding ideas) rather than an end.

Louis:

How do you propose that schools and teachers be tested on how well they are imparting information to their students? We know that some do a great job and others do a horrendous job. Seems to me there needs to be some mechanism to discern who is doing well and who isnt, and also to impel those doing a bad job to do a better job.

Seems to me also that standardized testing can work extremely well especially in regards to subjects like math and science, where factual answers are more readily apparent. The answer to 1+1 is always 2, while the meaning of a poem can have multiple well thought out answers.

So the question I put to you is how do you evaluate the success of schools and their students in what they should be learning?

Hi joebagodonuts,

“How do you propose that schools and teachers be tested on how well they are imparting information to their students?”

That’s a good question.

To a large extent good teaching can’t be tested for. It’s sort of like good music….you know it when you here it.

Good teaching is an art. Knowledge of subject matter can be tested for but there are many who know their subjects and have no aptitude for teaching.

I’ve had some brilliant teachers. None of that brilliance could be tested for though.

I suppose it’s like a lot of things. Competency in a surgeon can be tested but what you need are surgeons who have a deep understanding of and an incredible aptitude for surgery.

If you’re auditioning a musician for an important gig you can give them written tests for musical ability. The problem is that there are many who can pass the tests who lack the ability to play in a way that people enjoy.

Louis:

I think you hit on a part of the problem—the measure of how to test. You say that to a large extent, it cannot be done, but I would disagree with you there. As I said earlier, its easy to test for finite things like math. 1+1 never changes its answer. The chemical formula for a substance never changes. History is full of factual information that is easily recognized as right or wrong.

The ‘art’ of using this kind of information is the part that is hard to assess. But the information is easy to assess.

Schools must be held accountable for teaching. We all know of ‘good’ schools and ‘bad’ schools. But some administrators, taking a cue from lawyers, distract people from the real message. They talk about the passion of learning, or the multiple ways of determining successful teaching. But what they end up doing is obfuscating the obvious….Are they doing a good job of preparing their students for their futures?

Aldous

Always so angry. Being angry is easy, maybe it makes your feel righteous, but it is so bad for your health and so misdirected. You read a lot into the post that just wasn’t there. But I will take issue with Enron.

Enron was bad. Executives there violated the law and acted unethically. Nobody defends Enron. There are a few facts you should remember.

- The Enron problem developed during the Clinton Administration. The Bush Administration only detected and prosecuted the crime.

- Enron was a bipartisan donor. It was also a clever player in the charities game, giving to many good PC causes.

- Enron’s core business - energy arbitrage - is almost completely the creation of government regulation.

- Enron is not a Republican issue and Enron�€™s executives are nobody’s heroes.

I also am not simply advocating savings, but INVESTING. It is obvious that ordinary Americans have the ability to do so, because so many of them do. The poor are the ones who need to hear this the most. They have the most to gain from good habits and the most to lose from bad ones.

We need to remind people that they do have control over their lives. At first, maybe their control is small, but properly managed it grows. If you take control, you get more and if you argue that you are powerless, that is what you become.

Those of us who were poor know this. Those that are poor should learn it. Those who want to stay poor and helpless can ignore the advice and stay angry. I am not sure which comes first, anger or poverty, but they feed each other. They can fill in lots of reason why they can’t do better. Many of the reason will be plausible.

Let’s be honest.
The Substance of the article is to promote low taxes on investment earnings resulting in a financial bonus for the wealthy.

The rest is a smoke screen for cover. Particularly shameful is blaming public education. And this from the leading proponent of ‘be responsible for yourself’.

If raising the expectations of individual responsibility is what Republicans were really all about, I’d be with them. But what they are really about is greed and deception.

Great example of both Jack.

I really find it demeaning that Republicans once again cast the blame on Liberals for their own failures.

If the Liberials would take the blame for their own failures, the Conservitives wouldn’t have to casr blame on them.

Dear Jack:

Enron not a Republican issue? Whaaaa? Who’s jet, fueled by “Endrun” investor bucks, did good ol’ Dubbleyew fly around in and travel with during the 2000 campaign? Who den did dat dere Dubya dub “Kenny boy” due to their familiarity and long association?

…I’ll take “The Obvious” for $500, Alex: (theme from Jeopardy…) let’s see now, umm… Oh, yeah: Who is Ken Lay? (bells and applause)

Tell you what, in order for fulfill this virtuous dream of true philosophical wealth, please, any one ascribing to the initial premiss of this “wealth & Virtue” topic let me assit in your therapy and relieve you of that nasty old, mypoia creating, troublesome money. Send your relieved funds to:

Can’t Believe I Read This, Inc.
129.5 Pinch Me Blvd.
Yougottabekidding, Nebraska.

Hi joebagodonuts,

“As I said earlier, its easy to test for finite things like math. 1+1 never changes its answer.”

I don’t think we disagree much here. I’m in favor of testing. My degree is in biology and I’m very much in favor of proper math/science teaching and proper testing.

I’m saying that teaching students to take standardized tests is very poor teaching. The example I used earlier of the State School Board telling teachers not to bother with Greeks and Romans because it’s not on the test is atrocious.

One needs to understand something of Greek and Roman civilizations in order to have a deep understanding/appreciation for our government. If all one needs to do is pass a standardized test deep understanding isn’t necessary.

Holding students accountable for the standardized tests will make us a nation of competent Wall Mart managers but science, engineering, and understanding the philsophies that this nation was founded on go right out the window.

Swamp

This is about becoming wealthy, something that is a good thing.

I don’t blame public education, but I think it can get much better. My kids (and me too) are products of public education.

I believe generally in lower taxes. BUT we must have some taxes. IF we have taxes, they should be ones that are both efficient and encourage better habits. Lower taxes on investment income fits this definition.

Liberals don’t like to admit - and maybe don’t even recognize - that they are against wealth in favor of income. Wealth makes a person less dependent on others and less dependent on the state. Income is a short leash.

There is little of greed in what I am saying. I am talking about freedom that comes from controlling your own life to a much greater extent, the abilty to make financial choices. If you let people build wealth (and encourage them) you don’t need to take care of them as much. Good, right?

Let me steal and modify a little inspirational speech about types of greed:

I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet FREEDOM,
I am the most offending soul alive.

Jack,

You must have the best shit that has ever been grown. Your definition of wealth reached a level of absurdity that I have never seen before. What the hell is wrong with you?

wealth

n 1: the state of being rich and affluent; having a plentiful supply of material goods and money; “great wealth is not a sign of great intelligence” [syn: wealthiness] [ant: poverty] 2: the quality of profuse abundance; “she has a wealth of talent” 3: an abundance of material possessions and resources [syn: riches] 4: property that has economic utility: a monetary value or an exchange value

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Hi Ron,

“If the Liberials would take the blame for their own failures, the Conservitives wouldn�€™t have to casr blame on them.”

There are some incredibly stupid liberals in education with some incredibly bad ideas. I’ve run into liberal science teachers who want to teach that ideas in science are relative….one is a good as another….this is a REALLY BAD WAY TO TEACH SCIENCE.

These days it’s the right who are the main force for scientific relatavism. The right is screaming that any hairbrained “theory” must be taught as a valid scientific theory.

In education political considerations shouldn’t matter. Ideas are stupid, not stupid, or a bit stupid and reason must be used to distinguish between the stupid and the not stupid.

Do you hold those on the right accountable for the rampant scientific relatavism they’re pushing in the schools? Do you think that all hairbrained “theories” should have equal weight in science classes?

Hi Jack,

“Liberals don�€™t like to admit - and maybe don�€™t even recognize - that they are against wealth in favor of income.”

Republicans are so fricking stupid that they are advocating that the flat earth “theory” should be taught in science classes.

Why are you distorting the views of those you disagree with? What’s wrong with honest discussion of ideas?

Jack,
Why was this article titled wealth and virtue? You made no mention of virtue.

The concept of putting aside for retirement and building weath on those savings has been lost with Social Security. The Government has lied to the people by telling them that Social Security is the savior of the old. This has been happening for so long that a lot of folks believed it and haven’t saved or tried to create the proverbial nest egg for retirement.
Now with Social Security in the trouble that most Government programs get into, these folks don’t have anything to fall back on.
It’s no wonder that our schools aren’t teaching any lessons with a moral components to them. After all, our educatonal system has been hijacked by the liberials who think that schools are social experiments and not places to teach kids what they really need to make it in this world. This is also the reason that our children graduate without the basic skills they need.

Stephanie

How �€˜bout those of us who haven�€™t chosen to work for such a company, but live in a city that has chosen to build it�€™s economy around such a company? The plant local to us was spared, but that�€™s only because we�€™ve poured millions of dollars of public funds into keeping GM afloat locally. It�€™s pathetic. All that money could have gone to attracting businesses that weren�€™t so precarious.

You have a very valid point there. If that money had been spent on attracting new business then your town wouldn’t have to worry so much about GM closing the plant.
This is short sightedness on the part of the local politicians who are most likey in bed with GM.

Your definition of wealth is the same as mine - the state of being rich and affluent; having a plentiful supply of material goods and money. I advocate trying the reach a state where you have a plentiful supply and the government should encourage it. Do we disagree?

Louis

You can’t get me on the guilt by association. Nobody I know advocates a flat earth. I happen to believe in science (and in evolution). The only problem I have with the way science it taught is that it is not rigorous.

We must always recognize, however, that science is not neutral and never really above politics. Society and politics decide the nature of what will be studied and what will be accepted. While it is sometimes difficult to see it happening in today’s science, all you need do is look at an old science textbook to see what I mean. Of course, we wouldn’t do that today until we find out we did tomorrow.

Try to study the innate differences between men and women and see how popular you are on a campus like Harvard.

Consider Freud. He was wrong about almost everything. Yet for 50 years, he was science. We happily shocked and tortured people in asylums to try to cure something with therapy that was chemical or biological in nature. BF Skinner, full of shit but revered as a scientist. I mention these because they had a distinct and harmful effect on society.

Re wealth v income, am I wrong about the liberal view? Why all that anger about SS reform and why do I hear all the crticism of ownership society?

LouisXIV
I really don’t care who is running the school system. If they teach BS then they are wrong.

Ron,

The whole problem with GM is NAFTA. Plain and simple, without having regulation on the global market the manufacturing sector will be destroyed here in the United States. But as Bill Clinton said, we are moving into a service based economic model. Soon we will all be making crap. Thank God for Capitalism. : )

Elliot

Some people are so lucky or they inherit so much money that they can be wealthy without being virtuous. But it is fairly easy to piss away your wealth (as Mike Tyson) shows us, if you are stupid, greedy or lack self-discipline.

It is a statistical thing. Virtuousness and wealth building are correlated. People who have the ability to build wealth OVER TIME (not the lottery winners, Paris Hiltons or movie stars) tend to have the traits of self-control, prudence, intelligence etc that I associate with virtue. So, yes they are virtuous. I also think it is unlikely that someone who is prudent, intelligent and self-controlled can remain poor in the USA. He may never get rich. That is very different, but he won’t be on welfare his whole life.

My experience with poor people is that they very often lack these things. Over the decades of my working life I have observed this on many occasions. People who saw the need to enjoy themselves at the moment or those who were greedy to make a fast buck now don’t have anything but excuses.

So it is a correlation.

Also please keep in mind being wealthy includes the state of mind of sufficiency. A person can be wealthy with a few thousand dollars, while someone else with millions might not.

There was an ancient saying that some people have too much money, but few people have enough.

“If you let people build wealth (and encourage them) you don�€™t need to take care of them as much. Good, right?”

No, not good Jack.
If people need the govt to take care of them, they become dependent on that govt.
If the people are dependent on govt. they will vote for the party gives them the most “freebies.”
It is how liberalism has taken over the Democratic party and ruined it and it is what will soon be the end of our once great country.
In God We Trust? Hardly.
Our motto is now “Do for me so I dont have to.”

LouisXIV,

You have some double speak going my friend. You want a discussion of “Ideas” yet you say:

Republicans are so fricking stupid that they are advocating that the flat earth �€œtheory�€ should be taught in science classes.

Why are you distorting the views of those you disagree with? What�€™s wrong with honest discussion of ideas?

I assume by “flat earth theory” you are referring to ID. Is it not an “idea”. Who decides what “ideas” are worthy of “the discussion”.

OR maybe it’s just my ideas that can be discussed?

Hi Jack,

“You can�€™t get me on the guilt by association.”

Bush has advocated teaching creationism as if it’s a scientific theory. He speaks for many on the right.

“am I wrong about the liberal view?”

Yes. Many on the right are so obsessed with greed that they have no concept of value.

Hi Discerner,

“I assume by �€œflat earth theory�€ you are referring to ID. Is it not an �€œidea�€.”

It is an idea. Ideas don’t have equal weight in science. The idea that the sun revolves around the earth has far less evidence to support it than the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.

You seem to advocate scientific relatavism….one idea is as good as another in science classes. Maybe atomic theory (the idea that atoms combine to form molecules in certain fixed proportions) holds true but I think water isn’t necessarily H2O.

Science isn’t relative in the way you seem to think it is. Math isn’t either.

Jack,

Sorry, I don’t buy any logical relationship between wealth and virtue. The accumulation of wealth is not in and of itself a viruous act. A bank robber can accumulate wealth, but is not virtuous. Even though they accumulated vast amounts of wealth, I would never consider Ken Lay and his partners in crime at Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, Qwest and other corporations to be virtuous.

I happen to be very familiar with Joe Nacchio and the thugs who ran Qwest. I worked there for 27 years, and put 10% of my salary into a 401(k) every year. If it hadn’t been for their dishonesty, I’d be retired now. Instead, I’ll probably be working until I die. I was religious about saving money and trying to be prudent in my expenditures. I was, by all accounts, “virtuous.” But the hoodlums who ran Qwest used illegal means to raise the stock price and keep it artificially high, and when their fraudulent activites were exposed, the stock price collapsed, taking my 401k with it.

Nacchio walked away with over $50 million. I lost most of my life savings. So please don’t go telling me that Naccio was more virtuous than me. It’s a nice dream, but reality is much more cruel.

Louis

We have fundamental perception differences
Science is relative to society and its values. You have to make a distinction about science and science interpretation and also what gets studied.

See my Freud and Skinner examples above. Now we would not consider them or their methods legitimate science. Just a few decades ago, you could not consider them anything else.

I also don’t believe that seeking wealth is greed. Nothing in excess. Excess wealth is greedy. Having enough that you can weather life’s vicissitudes, send you kids to college, maintain an nice home, give to your favorite charities and have the leisure time to take part in your community is just being a good citizen. The person who doesn’t do that because he wants to consume more today instead of saving for tomorrow is the greedy one.

Elliot

That is why I said the relationship is statistical. It is generally true for large populations, not true for individuals. I also said building wealth over time. I don’t think a bank robber is building wealth. He is getting money. As I said in the original post, wealth is more than money or income.

The Enron people were crooks. What they did was illegal. I never advocated violating the laws to get rich.

I think that many people here are projecting their personalities onto what I wrote and reading things that are not here.

I also guess what I said was not as obvious as I thought.

Jack:

I like your definition of “wealth.” However, your post is skewed toward favoring high income, not wealth, as you define it.

Why don’t you want to treat renters fairly? Some people prefer owning, others prefer renting. Why can’t you be fair to both? Tolerance for other points of view, I hope, are part of your definition of wealth.

Why should a rich investor (wealthy or not) pay less taxes than a poor worker (wealthy or not)?

Paul

Because there is a value in the different behaviors, (again - statistically over large populations not individuals.)

A person who chooses to rent might have good reasons. Most of us have been renters. But if you go into a community dominated by rental properties, you find they are not as well maintained, community associations are weaker etc. Renters literally don’t have the same commitement to their properties because they are not their properties. Tautology.

Owning also brings more stability and creates wealth. I bought my home in 1997. My mortgage was just over $1200 a month. At that time it was about the same as the cost to rent a similar property. I am still paying $1200 a month. If someone rented my home, they would pay twice as much. AND the equity in the property has skyrocketed. Renting in the long term is stupid. But the incentive might not be easy to see in the short run. Incentives help. When I first bought, the tax deduction was an important part of my calculus. Thanks for that government program.

Investing is also a wealth building exercises whose benefits are less clear in the short term than its costs. One poor worker takes a trip to Las Vegas. Another invests the $2000. The Las Vegas guy tells his friend that he is a chump. But who is the chump in the long run? Sometimes you can pay taxes and not have earned any money. If you owned a mutual fund in 2001 for example, you could have officially made capital gains, but still had less in your investment in December than you did in January. YOu would be taxed and your hedonistic friend would call you a chump and you might believe him.

Hi Jack,

“Science is relative to society and its values.”

Do you have examples of this that apply to anything I may have studied in Chemistry, Physics, or biology?

Much of the evidence for evolution is found in genetics books. Can you point to any examples of relatavism of ideas in “The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease”?

“I also don�€™t believe that seeking wealth is greed.”

It is in some cases.

“Excess wealth is greedy.”

Many on the right view the quest for excess wealth as a holy quest.

We’re discussing an issue that transcends political labels…or at least should.

There are greedy scumbags of all political persuations. Your labeling oversimplifies this matter to the point of absurdity.

Louis

I mentioned Freud and Skinner. IF you look at their ideas from the disinterested vantage point you can see that they were creatures of their times and places. Their science was embedded in their society.

Biology - do you include animal behavior in biology? I do. Up until the 1960s animal behavior studies were conducted from the point of view that the male chose the female as a way to further HIS line. If you look at more recent studies, there is a lot more emphasis on the female strategy to get a strong male to do her bidding. The science didn’t change, but the interpreation sure did. Also changed is what gets funded and studied.

Or how about heredity and genetics. When I went to university you could get a very bad grade if you implied that human traits such as intelligence, shyness, aggression etc were based on genetic inheritance. Now science accepts that these are as influence by genes as they are by the environment, maybe more or less, and we talk about interactions. The same goes for gender differences. Actually that hasn’t changed. You still don’t get to study why women are not well represented among the top scientists unless you specify in advance that the reason is bias.

I studied genetics. I believe that evolutionary theory explains much of biology. But what we choose to emphasize is socially based. Frankly, whether or not the whole system is intelligently designed or random chance is something science can’t determine. Sort of like what was there before there was anything?

How about medicine? Ulcers used to be caused by stress. Now we know that viruses cause many. The same goes for types of cancer. Eat all the broccoli you want and some kinds of cancer will come anyway.

Physics, chemistry and math are less influenced by societal norms. Although again it depends on what you choose to study and to fund. During the 1960s we funded hard science and got a lot of it. YOu get what you pay for in many cases.

Re wealth - I don’t think people on the right view excess wealth any more favorably than people on the left. I think we just feel more comfortable with the concept of wealth. My liberal neighbors don’t give more away than I do and they are actually much more into consumption, they just feel guilty about it. I don’t consume what I don’t want to and I don’t feel at all guilty for what I do. They look down on me for my attitude. I look down on them for their practice and weakness. Otherwise we get along fine. At the end of the day, however, I am better off becasue my outlook is more a likeness of truth.

I agree with rewarding people that save. I do not think that capital gains tax should be abolished, or kept at the lower level. How about we do not tax the first 3K made in capital gains per household. I think that this would really help those who have little, start to accrue wealth.

Hi Jack,

“I mentioned Freud and Skinner.”

Psychological theories aren’t scientific theories like atomic theory and evolution.

“do you include animal behavior in biology?”

You’ve got a point but it’s a small one. There are bad biologists who go in for ridiculous ideas in order to further their ridiculous agendas. They are the exception.

“Frankly, whether or not the whole system is intelligently designed or random chance is something science can�€™t determine.”

Of course science can’t say what, if any, influence divine forces have on the physical world. Science is far too limited for that……That’s why I don’t recomend limiting one’s self to the study of science.

“I don�€™t think people on the right view excess wealth any more favorably than people on the left.”

I wouldn’t argue that. If I did it would be no more ridiculous than your �€œLiberals donⴠlike to admit - and maybe donⴠeven recognize - that they are against wealth in favor of income�€ statement.

I’m a Democrat. I’m not rich…..I do OK by my reckoning. I feel rich in many ways. One of the things that makes me feel rich is my library. I’ve got a nice collection of scholarly books that I enjoy reading and refering to. Even though many of my books were bought used I place a very high value on them as they make me very happy and fulfilled.

What I mean to say is that I don’t see how being a Democrat makes me less appreciative of wealth as opposed to income. My Library makes me feel extremely wealthy even though it cost me far less than a fancy car or a yacht would have.

I could point to many Republicans who seem to have far less appreciation for wealth as, opposed to income, than I do.

Do you see what I mean about how this sort of idea transcends political labels?

In God We Trust? Hardly.
Our motto is now �€œDo for me so I dont have to.�€

Sad but true kctim.

Louis
We don’t have disagreements about pure science, probably because most people don’t understand it and it doesn’t immediately affect them. This science is outside politics to some extent, but it is not outside culture. Historically, different cultures have made uneven contributions to science because of how much or how little it was valued or oppressed.

The science that impacts society is largely the behviorial ones. I never considered sociology a science and I have my doubts about psychology, but they are seen as science by many people and their studies pass for scientific evidence.

There is also the presentation.

I own a forest of loblolly pine so I watch these things. In N. Carolina is an experiment that adds greenhouse gas to the air around the pine trees to see how they respond. So far, the unambiguous result is that the trees grow faster and are healthier than their neighbors. That is the science part. When the results were recently reported in the media, the headline was “Bathed in Greenhouse Gas, Pine Trees Deviate.” Technically deviate is a correct term. In fact the connotations are negative. The article, which I read very carefully, left a negative impression since it emphasized potential (although not observed) problems at the expense of actual observed results. The article was designed to fit into the existing global warming narrative instead of following where the science was going.

When people argue about science, they are rarely arguing about the basic science. They are arguing about the societal implications. Scientists are not always so good and virtuous that they are not affected. They study what pays.

Hi Jack,

“When people argue about science, they are rarely arguing about the basic science.”

That’s true except in the case of evolution. There are a lot of idiots who argue that it’s “just” a theory.”

“I never considered sociology a science and I have my doubts about psychology”

I’m in complete agreement with you there. I like ‘real’ science. When I studied biology biochemistry was one of my favorite courses because it has a lot of straightforward answers to important questions.

“I own a forest of loblolly pine”

I like loblollies. I’ve got several hundred in my yard……not really a forest though.

Louis

Evolution is just a theory. I believe it explains the current biology. But it is a theory. Proponents of evolution (and I am one) often make the mistake of getting into religious style arguments with the religious people. This is their battlefield. Never fight where the opponent wants if at all possible. We should just stick to the facts - that it explains and lets us understand. Leave the question of truth to those who seek it.

I own 176 acres of forest land. It is my hobby and rapidly becoming my vocation. My pines are genetically superior - developed with the mechanisms of evolution. I think that is proof, but not everyone agrees.

Jack,

About your comments on Freud and Skinner.

You have to admit that they were the cutting edge at the time. They were doing things that no one had done before them.
As science has matured, so too has scientific procedures and the information gleaned from them. Coppernnicus, and Newton though brilliant in their own times, would be pikers by today’s standards.
That said, without these men of science, would we be where we are today?

Rocky

We can build on the work of Copernicus or Newton. Their work is incomplete, but not wrong. Skinner and Freud were generally wrong. They made people think in new ways. That was good. But they made people go the wrong way. That was bad.

BTW - you live in Phoenix, right? I will be there to visit my sister in law January 28-9. Maybe I can buy you a beer. email me at johnmatel@yahoo.com if you are interested.

Sorry Rocky - DECEMBER.

Jack,

I just sent the e-mail.

Jack,

One more on Freud.

He was working in a science that no one had explored before, and therefore he couldn’t know just how much he didn’t know. I have to admit that knowledge here is limited.

Do we really know that much more now?

Having little experience, or knowledge with psychology, I am sometimes at a loss to understand the problems that other folks have in this area.

“I have to admit that knowledge here is limited.”

That should read, my knowledge on the subject is limited.

And before everyone gets up in arms, I don’t have much knowledge about psychiatry either.

Rocky,

While Freud and Skinner were exploring a relatively new area of thought, they were both also bi-products of their time. They lived in a very sexual repressed culture and thus concluded that sexual repression was causing much of the problems they were studying, which was a false conclusion.

On a personal note, using bad science to force one’s idea across, just because the field of study is relatively young is a poor excuse, imo, for using bad science. I have medical professionals, who should know better, telling me that all three of my children cannot be on the autistic spectrum, because that just doesn’t happen, even though I know several other families in a similiar situation and have read books by other medical professionals who are trying to study the causation of such a probable genetic link to the disorder. Yet, I’m still struggling with the doctor to get passed onto a psychologist who’s actually qualified to make the diagnosis for my third child, because the doctor knows that the psychologist will prove her wrong. In the meantime, my youngest child is being prevented from receiving therapy that is documented to work best when began as early as possible. Thus, the doctor’s bad science, and unwillingness to let it go, is hurting my son.

Stephanie,

“They lived in a very sexual repressed culture and thus concluded that sexual repression was causing much of the problems they were studying, which was a false conclusion.”

Again, because of a lack of knowledge of Freud, I am limited.
How can a scientist without previous studies to learn from, know that his conclusions were false without years of practice or study?

It is easy with hindsight to say someone’s conclusions are wrong, it is another thing entirely to not want to be proven wrong, as in the case of your son’s doctor.

Hi Jack,

“Evolution is just a theory.”

Would you refer to atomic theory (the theory that says atoms combine to form molecules in certain fixed proportions) is “just a theory?

You do realize that a scientific theory is far different from the common definition of “theory”?

“We should just stick to the facts - that it explains and lets us understand.”

I don’t think that students should be lied to about what science is. Those who advocate ID are advocating just that.

“I own 176 acres of forest land.”

That’s way cool. I own 4 acres and I consider myself blessed to have that much land.

Rocky,

I don’t know a whole lot about Freud, only what I learned in college Psych 101. From what I understand he did have “years of study” under his belt when he made some of his more preposterous conclusions. I think the mistake that should be learned from Freud’s results is you can’t take a segment of a population (i.e., those who could afford his services from a certain geographical area) and make generalized conclusions about it. He (or his students did) concluded certain problems faced by his patients were universal to all people, despite the fact that they faced different circumstances.

LouisXIV,

“You do realize that a scientific theory is far different from the common definition of “theory”?”

Yes, non-scientists use the word theory much more loosely than scientists do, however if a scientific theory is a still a theory, it means the scientists cannot prove it. They can support it with the evidence that is available, but the evidence is inconclusive or incomplete. The theory of evolution cannot be either proven or disproven, that’s why it’s a theory and not a fact.

If scientific theories had never been proved false before, your (seeming) position that evolution cannot/should not be questioned would make sense. But scientific theories have been disproven and that’s the nature of science. Darwinian evolution (which is what I was taught in school) has been proven incomplete at best and wrong in some areas of study, but the theory of evolution still stands because there is no more complete (than scientists have made it) explanation for the evidence we have.

As far as evolution goes, I’ve yet to hear an explanation for the platypus.

Hi Stephanie,

“it means the scientists cannot prove it.”

Science doesn’t prove anything. Science provides evidence for, or against, ideas.

“your (seeming) position that evolution cannot/should not be questioned would make sense.”

I think all scientific theories should be questioned. Providing “alternative theories” that have no evidence to support them isn’t questioning scientific theories…..it’s just teaching bullshit.

My postition is that lying to students about what a scientific theory is makes for extremely bad science teaching.

In common parlance evolution is a fact. Evolution has been shown to occur beyond any reasonable doubt. The theory of evolution is as much of a fact as atomic theory is.

“I�€™ve yet to hear an explanation for the platypus.”

Scientific theories don’t explain everything. There is much that isn’t known about gravity but that doesn’t mean gravitational force isn’t directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance.

Hi Stephanie,

“if a scientific theory is a still a theory, it means the scientists cannot prove it. They can support it with the evidence that is available, but the evidence is inconclusive or incomplete.”

You don’t know what a scientific theory is. You’re very smart and very nice but you don’t have a clue about what a scientific theory is.

Evidence for scientific theories is conclusive. Science provides no complete evidence for anytthing. Science doesn’t deal in complete evidence just observable evidence.

Sorry LouisXIV, the flu decided to visit my household twice, so I’ve been dealing with that. In case you’re still going to read this, I’ll respond.

“Science doesn’t prove anything.”

That is contrary to what every science teacher I ever had has told me. If they are all wrong, then I assure you you’ve got bigger problems in the public education system than ID.

“I think all scientific theories should be questioned. Providing “alternative theories” that have no evidence to support them isn’t questioning scientific theories…it’s just teaching bullshit.”

As I’ve said before, and will undoubtably say again, I really don’t know what ID, as it is taught, is all about. Nor do I care overly much, as it falls into the realm of “belief system” which I teach my kids at home (as does contemporary science, btw).

Personally, I believe evolution does take place and I know there’s a significant amount of evidence to back that belief up. Whether that’s how human beings came to be what they are, I don’t know and I doubt anyone else does either, that’s a faith issue. Do you have faith that what we know of evolution is conclusive enough to assume that human beings evolved from significantly lesser organisms? I don’t know, and again, I don’t really care. However, I do have a strong belief in God that has formed from numerous experiences that cannot be easily explained away by logic, but that belief does not transfer to a literal interpretation of the Bible. God, the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator of this universe, could just as easily have created the universal laws that science studies and brought all we know into being that way as to have created everything out of “whole cloth.” I don’t think that’s something we will be able to answer, without a doubt, with science.

If that is the concept that seems like “bullshit” to you, then I guess that shows a lot about your world view. However, if there is something particularly hokey about ID, then please share it. I’ve yet to hear a good explanation as to why the idea of ID is so offensive to so many people, other than it’s not evolution.

“My postition is that lying to students about what a scientific theory is makes for extremely bad science teaching.”

I was taught so many skewwed conceptions of reality in school that I’ve found to be false as an adult (some discovered here on Watchblog) that I really find it hard to get worked up about it any more. If we actually taught our kids to study, to learn and to think logically in school, we’d be in a much better position to teach them other truths, versus skewwed perspectives of reality, but as it is, those who can will learn such things as adults (or a lucky few will learn them as kids) and the rest of them will have to plod along in the dolldrums of society.

It’s not a happy scenario, certainly, but it’s the reality of our current situation. There’s so much politics in the school system, which have been predominantly liberal for a LONG time, and public schools have become such a big place for indoctrinating our kids, that teaching skills to help kids think for themselves is too risque for most with the influence to do so to really consider.

“Evolution has been shown to occur beyond any reasonable doubt.”

That’s true. Evolution does occur. However, the theory of evolution isn’t just about “evolution does occur,” it’s about drawing conclusions that human beings evolved from single-celled organisms over millenia and thus became what we are now, which is NOT something that we can prove, without any doubt, has occured. It’s a conclusion that has been drawn, that all life on Earth has evolved from the primordial soup scenario, which (while you may not be one of them) many people insist should not and cannot be questioned that I have a problem with. That is something we don’t know, that is merely a conclusion scientists have drawn from the available, albeit inconclusive, evidence.

“The theory of evolution is as much of a fact as atomic theory is.”

Atomic theory, actually, is a good example of my point. In school, I was taught that it was a FACT that protons, neutrons and electrons were the smallest particles in existence. You couldn’t get any smaller than that, no sir-ee bob. Nope, just can’t do it.

Hmmm…. Then’s what’s this I hear about a quark?

Well, um, that’s… Okay, we’re changing it. QUARKS are the smallest particles in existence! You can’t get any smaller than that. Nope, just can’t do it.

Yada yada yada.

The nature of scientific theories is that they are the best we can do with what we know now, but they’re flexible and changeable. They are set up to make scientists question them and study them, either to further strengthen them or to find something that forces the idea aside to make room for a new, more comprehensive idea.

“Scientific theories don’t explain everything. There is much that isn’t known about gravity but that doesn’t mean gravitational force isn’t directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance.”

Evolution doesn’t conclusively explain the existence of life on Earth to me, because it doesn’t explain the platypus (as well as many other missing pieces to the puzzle). That’s my point. If all people are claiming in the class room (not college or beyond) is that we know evolution does occur (including examples and explanations) and we THINK that human beings (as well as all other life on Earth) may have evolved to the point we’re at now, and here’s our evidence, but it’s not yet conclusive… If that’s what kids were being taught, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but that’s not what I was taught in school and I doubt that it will be what my kids are taught.

As per the gravity thing, again that’s a scientific theory that is used to conclude things we cannot prove. We know gravity is real and that it’s complex. Scientists assume that gravity is the force that formed our solar system out of a bunch of other smaller particles formed during the Big Bang. This may or may not be correct, we lack sufficient evidence to make a claim nearly so strong on this matter as the much more provable claim that gravity exists. We can prove gravity exists. We cannot prove some of the conclusions that scientists have drawn from the fact that gravity exists. Nor can we prove conclusively all the laws we believe gravity to function by. Yet, I was still taught in school that the Big Bang theory was equally as strong of a fact as gravity itself.

“You’re very smart and very nice but you don’t have a clue about what a scientific theory is.”

First, thank you for the compliments. Second, while it may be true that I don’t know what a scientific theory is, I am the product of the public education system, so if I don’t, then again I must say you have bigger problems than ID, because it wasn’t around when I was in school.