Judge Orders Removal of Evolution Stickers

[anomaly]

Ignorance is bliss, right? Maybe you're right. Let's just not use science any more. Facts aren't important. Anyone have any thoughts on Gabo's admiration for ignorance?
Moving on, let me tell my theory of what would happen if all schools were privatized. Schools would then become a business owned by a person or group. There may be a racist rising to the top of one of these "school businesses". So then this person decides that in his schools, no blacks can attend (or no latinos or no whites, depending on the racist). Much more likely, however, is that there would develop a monarchy of sorts in education. Over time the schools businesses would have competition over education, and a monopoly would develop (as usually happens in any market). Then this business alone would not only decide what is taught in schools but also who can attend. This one winning business would then, obviously, raise its tuition rates. After all, there's no other school where kids could go. Your charity based schools would never make it (everyone knows that greed is one of the most distinctive human qualities). So pretty soon you have the rich kids going to one school corporation with quality materials (and yes Gabo, these rich may get a better education than all kids currently receive). The rest of the kids whose parents can't afford school will be forced to try homeschooling or poor community schools with terrible materials. To afford the "good" school, who knows what would happen (I wouldn't doubt that child labor laws would be lifted in an attempt to afford the "good" school). And just think of how this would effect who gets what jobs! No, I feel privatization is out of the question.

By the way, schools in the UK are public, and yet their literacy rates are at 99-100%. Ours are 96-97%. (correct me if I'm wrong on these figures).

 

[Gabo]

Ignorance is bliss, right? Maybe you're right. Let's just not use science any more. Facts aren't important. Anyone have any thoughts on Gabo's admiration for ignorance?

I'm entitled to my ignorance of science if I wish.
Just like you are entitled to your ignorance of the fact that FORCING kids to go to public school is taking away some of their liberty.

Schools would then become a business owned by a person or group. There may be a racist rising to the top of one of these "school businesses". So then this person decides that in his schools, no blacks can attend (or no latinos or no whites, depending on the racist).

It would be nearly impossible for a discriminating business to reach the top of the ladder. First of all, anytime you discriminate in your business you lose that many customers. Those schools that are racist would lose EVERY single person they discriminated against. Second, almost everyone won't tolerate racism, so that school would further lose business. Without any customers, the business goes bankrupt. On the other hand, a non-discriminatory school would take in as many customers as possible, increasing its ranks and becoming more and more sought after. Schools like these would be the ones to reach the top.

Much more likely, however, is that there would develop a monarchy of sorts in education. Over time the schools businesses would have competition over education, and a monopoly would develop (as usually happens in any market). Then this business alone would not only decide what is taught in schools but also who can attend. This one winning business would then, obviously, raise its tuition rates. After all, there's no other school where kids could go.

1) The school system is already monopolized by the government, and as you show, monopolies don't work and cause inefficiency.
2) A monopoly hardly ever lasts in a free market economy. Any time the consumer no longer desires the service because of its inefficiency, they will turn to new, smaller businesses to provide better quality and price. The monopoly will soon fall with lack of customers, and the new, more efficient provider will shine. In this way, competition creates better, more innovative, and more efficient products.

Your charity based schools would never make it (everyone knows that greed is one of the most distinctive human qualities). The rest of the kids whose parents can't afford school will be forced to try homeschooling or poor community schools with terrible materials. To afford the "good" school, who knows what would happen. And just think of how this would effect who gets what jobs! No, I feel privatization is out of the question.

Riddle me this: If the majority of the population in the US currently believes they need to spend their tax money to support public schools for the poor, then why wouldn't the majority of the population also want to give charity to private schooling for the poor?
Also, yes people are greedy. And thats why especially big businesses will provide education for possible employees. They could offer to take in people and teach them the ropes.

By the way, schools in the UK are public, and yet their literacy rates are at 99-100%. Ours are 96-97%. (correct me if I'm wrong on these figures).

Both schools systems are public....
Ours just happens to be a less efficient public school system, though a private one would ensure everyone gets what they want.

 

[Fantasea]

This is more libertarian dogma. You don't really know this, but you're supposed to believe it as a libertarian. Please give me an example of a totally privatized education system where the "quality of schooling" increased for everyone, not just for those who could afford it.

A perfect example is the diocesan high school system in the City of New York. Neighborhood population shifts during the past fifty years have resulted in more than half these schools now being in the midst of ghettos.

With only the children of disadvantaged families, who cannot afford full tuition, from which to draw their students, these schools, supported by alumni contributions and the New York Archdiocese, fill the available seats, graduate better than 90% of those who start as freshmen, and see 97% of these go on to post-secondary education.

I'm sure that other metropolitan dioceses enjoy similar experience.

Compare this to public high school experience in the same neighborhoods.

I take it from this statement that you do not think underprivileged people deserve an education.

Their need is the greatest. Why force them to remain in the public school system where failure is guaranteed?

You show here a misunderstanding of how science works. Again, evolution is the fact, and natural selection is the theory that explains that fact. The theory doesn't have to be "thoroughly proven" to be valid, it merely has to explain the facts better than any other theory, which natural selection does, and it's why we're still teaching it today. There is no reputable scientist in the world who doubts that evolution took place, the question is how exactly it took place.

That we don't have a complete and seamless fossil record does not disprove the fact of evolution. The fossil record is what it is. And what explains that fossil record better than anything else thus proposed? Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

If, someday, we find a fossil or observe a phenomenon that isn't explained by the theory, it will be augmented to include the new fact, or scrapped altogether for one that does. That's called science, and it's why evolution will and should be taught as fact.

Squabbling over this question is like squabbling over the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic while it is sinking.

It is not now, and never has been, about the amount of money spent. The fact is that the average annual per capita expenditure in the public school system is more than the average per capita college tuition amount.

Was it your choice to go to grade school? I think any child given the choice would opt not to go to school. The concept behind public education is that you shouldn't be penalized for your parents lack of resources or ignorance.

No one argues this.

Some public schools are sub par, and others aren't. (I attended some very good public schools, because they drew students from affluent neighborhoods.) What' the difference? Money. The problem with our public school system is under-funding. (We've simply chosen smart bombs over smart students...and we now have very smart bombs; smarter, in fact, than the people who drop them.) There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of public schools (unless you're a libertarian, in which case you must denounce it, pragmatism be damned).

It's not money. That's just the best available excuse for poor administration.

In a totally privatized system you would still have sub-par schools, just like you have sub-par restaurants and cars and doctors. You can advocate total privatization; what you can't claim is that it will be any better than the system we have now. Something that purports to cure all ills is called a panacea, and there's no such thing. Some things benefit from privatization, others benefit from socialization. The trick is knowing which is which and getting the mix just right.

Every private and parochial school produces far better results, especially for those who need it most, than do the public schools. Do a little research and see for yourself.

P.S. You ask the private sector to provide mass transit, and they propose the automobile: inefficient, dangerous, dirty and costly. You ask the public sector to provide it, and you get light rail: efficient, safe, clean and cheap. Every libertarian should ride the New York subway, then drive the same distance on an LA freeway in rush hour traffic. They’ll learn first hand the difference between privatization and socialization.

Would it surprise you to know that, initially, the NYC subways were built, owned, and operated, not by the city, but by private corporations? However, the politicians couldn't keep their hands off and eventually forced the city to buy out the private owners.

P.P.S. European countries with socialized medicine actually pay less per capita for the same health care that we pay through the nose for. Privatization actually increases the cost of health care.

I wonder why it is that Canadians who can afford to do so come to the US when they have a serious condition and don't want to wait on that long, long, long line at the local 'free hospital'.

The government regulates and subsidizes our food source, which is why our supermarkets are veritable cornucopias and we're the fattest nation on Earth.

True. And, if you check out the disadvantaged areas, you will find that obesity is assuming epidemic proportions.

A visiting dignitary from an African nation once said that the only place he ever saw poor people who are fat is in the US. Why is this?

 

[anomaly]

Gabo, I find it amazing that you're an anti-intellectual in science, yet you seem to have all the answers when it comes to economics. A free-market society with no government regulation is a recipe for disaster (consider that without government regulations we would probably have the air quality of Mexico City in most parts of this country, and child labor would probably still be legal). I ask you to please go to the economics category and to my latest thread there. I have posted a website that has an interview with a Princeton economics professor speaking on the ills of privatizing Social Security. But anyway...Back to school privatization. In your reply to my reply you never really speak on what I consider to be the greatest problem in private schools: the ability to teach anything one wants with no government regulation. This "education" then becomes one corporations opinion on what facts and what fiction to teach their students. And yes, both school systems (of the UK and US) are public, and that't exactly my point. Public schools aren't the reason that US students aren't learning as much as some European students are (notably the UK, France, and Germany). The problem to address is why. Why is the US behind? I have an answer that you may not like to hear. Bush's tax cuts have allowed less and less money to go to schools. For example, in my state of Indiana, school budgets have decreased each of the last four years. Hmmm, what a coincidence that this is Bush's first term...

 

[Gabo]

(consider that without government regulations we would probably have the air quality of Mexico City in most parts of this country, and child labor would probably still be legal)

A couple of things:
1) If you can prove the air you breathe is affecting your health due to a certain factor, you should have every right to sue whoever is causing the damage.
2) The reason air quality is so bad is muchly due to government. Gas companies threaten our gov that if alternative methods are created, tons of jobs will be lost and our economy will collapse. All the government blockheads then agree to continue to support the horrible (yet highly profitable) gasoline.
3) Another note: government is the single biggest polluter in our nation, yet it takes no responsibility for any of its actions, claiming "sovereign immunity"
4) There is nothing wrong with a child deciding to work at a young age. As long as the child consents to working, they should be allowed to do as they please to support themselves and/or their families.

In your reply to my reply you never really speak on what I consider to be the greatest problem in private schools: the ability to teach anything one wants with no government regulation. This "education" then becomes one corporations opinion on what facts and what fiction to teach their students.

What gives you the right to decide what my child will learn?
Do you think you have a higher claim on their life than they do?
If anything, my child can decide for themselves or I can decide for them.

And if you are so obsessed with "truth", why don't they teach in school how every time minimum wage increases, available jobs decrease dramatically. Or how the average person works till May just to earn enough money to pay taxes. Or how people would earn 2x the amount for retirement by investing with a safe account instead of putting it into SS.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Would it surprise you to know that, initially, the NYC subways were built, owned, and operated, not by the city, but by private corporations? However, the politicians couldn't keep their hands off and eventually forced the city to buy out the private owners.

Would it surprise YOU to know that the Washington, D. C. transit system too was, " built, owned, and operated, not by the city, but by private corporations?" When I came to the city in 1938, the system was thriving. During the war it continued to thrive. During rush hour streetcars were lined up solidly along the entire length of Pennsylvania Avenue. Service was as good as it could possibly be, and the system was well maintained. The system was making money for its private owners. Yay for them.

Then some funny things happened. The war ended. Automobiles, tires and gasolene become available; suburbs sprouted; and suddenly the transit system was not economically viable anymore. Although it remained vital it was a liability. During this period the system changed hands several times. Each change was no doubt accompanied by a certain amount of chicanery, but that's really beside the point. The owners knew they weren't going to make anything and were cannibalizing the system for all they were worth.

Here's a little problem for you: Given the situation I've described, what is the only possible thing that can happen?

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

And if you are so obsessed with "truth", why don't they teach in school how every time minimum wage increases, available jobs decrease dramatically. Or how the average person works till May just to earn enough money to pay taxes. Or how people would earn 2x the amount for retirement by investing with a safe account instead of putting it into SS.

This would be almost funny if it weren't so tragic. You poor dumb fish, you've swallowed the Republican line, hook and sinker. The problem with these "truths" of yours is that they aren't. For example, minimum wage increases or the prospect thereof produce mainly bellyaching from the business community and no detectable decrease in jobs. The idea that retirement income can be reliably doubled by investment has already been tried and found disastrous in both the UK and Chile, at least. Why should it work any better here?

Yes, it does take a few months to earn the money to pay taxes. How long do you think you'd have to work to buy the things your taxes pay for?

What gives you the right to decide what my child will learn?
Do you think you have a higher claim on their life than they do?
If anything, my child can decide for themselves or I can decide for them.

If you feel that strongly about it, you can certainly share your own ignorance by home schooling them or you could pick a private school. How about a parochial school? I'm sure les religieuses would be happy to teach anything you want :rofl

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

A couple of things:
1) If you can prove the air you breathe is affecting your health due to a certain factor, you should have every right to sue whoever is causing the damage.

That's about as fair and reasonable as a witchcraft trial. Who could possibly ask for better than that? :lamo

2) The reason air quality is so bad is muchly due to government. Gas companies threaten our gov that if alternative methods are created, tons of jobs will be lost and our economy will collapse. All the government blockheads then agree to continue to support the horrible (yet highly profitable) gasoline.

Oddly enough, you are not as far off the mark as usual here, even though, as is sometimes said, the ac-CENT is on the wrong sy-LAB-bul. Our government, being a bought and paid for Division of Corporate America, is unlikely to be directly threatened. What would be threatened would be the re-election chances of errant politicians.

3) Another note: government is the single biggest polluter in our nation, yet it takes no responsibility for any of its actions, claiming "sovereign immunity"

That is a claim you can't come close to backing up. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed the biggest polluters of the Bay by far are the farmers, especially the chicken and hog farmers; and the sewage treatment plants of the many municipalities. You might say that the governments responsible for the sewage treatment plants are polluters, but consider what things would be like if they weren't there. However, since you are a fellow opposed on principal to paying for anything, you would never go along with upgrading those plants?

4) There is nothing wrong with a child deciding to work at a young age. As long as the child consents to working, they should be allowed to do as they please to support themselves and/or their families.

The finest example of moral tone deafness I've ever seen.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

But anyway...Back to school privatization. In your reply to my reply you never really speak on what I consider to be the greatest problem in private schools: the ability to teach anything one wants with no government regulation.

I was reading along nodding approvingly until I got to this. A privatized school may be, as you say, a truly private school, but it's more likely to be simply a government contractor. The devil is in the details, of course, but the governments are the ones paying the bills here and may balk at relinquishing all control. In any event private schools from military to fundamentaist Univ have requirements they must meet. They have a freer hand but not a free hand. :drink

 

[anomaly]

I think its safe to say that these private schools follow the curriculum (mostly) of larger state schools. So it seems as long as regulation exists, these private schools will not stray to far from state schools (for the reasons you stated). But if all schools were private, there would be no government standards to follow. You are right in saying that right now private schools can't teach whatever they want, but if government regulations were lifted, then they could obviously teach anything. It seems that the key issue is this government regulation and if it should exist. Any thoughts?

 

[Gabo]

For example, minimum wage increases or the prospect thereof produce mainly bellyaching from the business community and no detectable decrease in jobs.

Please refer to this website:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/p/bps160/Minimum Wages.htm
Minimum wage laws indeed do effect employment rates.
Anyone who understands basic economics can tell you that.

The idea that retirement income can be reliably doubled by investment has already been tried and found disastrous in both the UK and Chile, at least. Why should it work any better here?

Disastrous? LOL!!! I wonder what you've been reading. Look at this:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html

Yes, it does take a few months to earn the money to pay taxes. How long do you think you'd have to work to buy the things your taxes pay for?

Not nearly as long, considering the fact that I'd only be buying what I wanted, rather than paying for whatever the heck the government decides. Furthermore, I wouldn't be wasting an additional 65c for every dollar I made to pay for IRS expenses.

If you feel that strongly about it, you can certainly share your own ignorance by home schooling them or you could pick a private school. How about a parochial school? I'm sure les religieuses would be happy to teach anything you want :rofl

Home schooling and private schooling still aren't a viable option. As long as we are FORCED to pay taxes to the government for schooling we may not even support, homeschooling and private schools become extremely burdensome on those who utilize them.

 

[Gabo]

That's about as fair and reasonable as a witchcraft trial. Who could possibly ask for better than that? :lamo

I'll tell you one thing. Pollution would become much less frequent if people are able to prove their air is contaminated by someone. Just because we all take pollution and ruining of the air we breathe for granted, doesn't mean the practice should be legal. It has absolutely nothing in common with a witch trial, which was carried out with no proof whatsoever.

That is a claim you can't come close to backing up. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed the biggest polluters of the Bay by far are the farmers, especially the chicken and hog farmers; and the sewage treatment plants of the many municipalities. You might say that the governments responsible for the sewage treatment plants are polluters, but consider what things would be like if they weren't there. However, since you are a fellow opposed on principal to paying for anything, you would never go along with upgrading those plants?

If someone can prove the plants are effecting their water, air, or any other think they consume, they can sue them. Bad upkept plants would disappear and only the ones of highest quality would thrive.

Check out this for some info on how the government pollutes:
archive.lp.org/rel/19991124-pollution.html

 

[anomaly]

I'd just like to add to Ken's already great rebuttle. Gabo, this air pollution (which does exist...if you want proof just go to LA and try to see the HOLLYWOOD sign clearly...or just watch Bowling for Columbine) is now on the rise as the Republicans gain power and begin to push back air pollution regulations (it's happening right now), of course to the delight of many big businesses.

 

[Gabo]

I'd just like to add to Ken's already great rebuttle. Gabo, this air pollution (which does exist...if you want proof just go to LA and try to see the HOLLYWOOD sign clearly...or just watch Bowling for Columbine) is now on the rise as the Republicans gain power and begin to push back air pollution regulations (it's happening right now), of course to the delight of many big businesses.

When air polluting companies start getting sued for millions for endangering the well-being of the entire nation, we will start seeing a lot less pollution.

Not to mention the fact that the government would actually be held responsible for its pollution, which is more than the five largest polluting companies in the US put together.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Check out this for some info on how the government pollutes:
archive.lp.org/rel/19991124-pollution.html

Your reference doesn't seem to exist.
Why don't you just copy what it is you want to show us?

 

[Gabo]

Your reference doesn't seem to exist.
Why don't you just copy what it is you want to show us?

Sorry if that link was broke.

Here is another one:

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9906-environment.html

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

There are spots of radioactive contamination all over the country. Some of them are a result of government activity; many more are due to private commercial activity, your darling. Private industry is waiting for a place they can safely dispose of their nuclear debris. Can you guess who is supposed to provide it? That's right, the federal government :applaud Does Yucca Mountain ring a bell? Oh, you don't like YM? Then where is the private industry that stands ready to provide a safe storage place?

Are you familiar with the Berkley Pit in Butte? That has got to be almost the worst pollution site in America, and it was not the government that did it. Here in the east the air is brought to us courtesy of a bunch of Ohio power plants. They are allowed to pollute the air, not because of anything the government has done, but because of what it hasn't done. In this case we need more government, not less.

 

[Gabo]

They are allowed to pollute the air, not because of anything the government has done, but because of what it hasn't done. In this case we need more government, not less.

Any person affected by their pollution in a negative way should sue them.

Tell you what: if they all did, the polluters wouldn't last long. Alternative energy sources would become much more commonly used.

There is no need for random government regulations. If someone hurts you, they must undo it or give you fair compensation.

 

[anomaly]

So instead you want to advance the already lawsuit crazy ways of modern America? You seem to misunderstand gov't regulation completely. Look at what happened in the past when we let business run itself from the 1870's-1920's, with, of course, a break in the middle for the Populist and Progressive movements. When business is not regulated, it obviously does anything for profits. Salaries would decrease dramatically, and prices for goods get lower. Demand lowers as businesses create huge surpluses of goods and then, of course, money is lost. What does this lead to? Well its anyone's guess but in the '20s when this deregulation was taking place, the Great Depression was what it lead to.

 

[Fantasea]

So instead you want to advance the already lawsuit crazy ways of modern America? You seem to misunderstand gov't regulation completely. Look at what happened in the past when we let business run itself from the 1870's-1920's, with, of course, a break in the middle for the Populist and Progressive movements. When business is not regulated, it obviously does anything for profits. Salaries would decrease dramatically, and prices for goods get lower. Demand lowers as businesses create huge surpluses of goods and then, of course, money is lost. What does this lead to? Well its anyone's guess but in the '20s when this deregulation was taking place, the Great Depression was what it lead to.

Never forget this. Everything that has contributed to the economic miracle that is the US was accomplished by business entities in spite of the 'brakes' being applied by socialist-lib-dems who can't get it through their heads that acquiring wealth is not a sin.

Whenever the government steps in to regulate business, that is when economic difficulties arise because the tampering upsets the natural law of supply and demand which ensures that goods produced will be consumed by workers who have incomes to purchase them.

More workers producing more goods expands the market which requires still more workers producing more goods. The economic boom we are enjoying even in the midst of a war is proof of this.

 

[anomaly]

Did you even respond? My whole reply was using historical evidence to show that laissez-faire capitalism will inevitably self destruct. Businesses left to themselves over produce and create huge surpluses of goods. Too much supply and not enough demand as workers' wages are decreased. Money is lost. Just read a history book and look up why the Great Depression happened. It happened because the 20s were a period of economic recklessness that can be illustrated in such quotes as "the business of America is business". Government philosophy towards economy was to let the market be, and do not interfere. Then the Great Depression came, and FDR came up with a great idea. He started his New Deal, a plan ensuring that the factors that caused the Great Depression (unrestricted business) would not be allowed to take place again.

 

[Gabo]

So instead you want to advance the already lawsuit crazy ways of modern America? You seem to misunderstand gov't regulation completely. Look at what happened in the past when we let business run itself from the 1870's-1920's, with, of course, a break in the middle for the Populist and Progressive movements. When business is not regulated, it obviously does anything for profits. Salaries would decrease dramatically, and prices for goods get lower. Demand lowers as businesses create huge surpluses of goods and then, of course, money is lost. What does this lead to? Well its anyone's guess but in the '20s when this deregulation was taking place, the Great Depression was what it lead to.

The government is entirely responsible for the great depression.

The reason our gov was able to create this disaster was because of the central bank.

The government decides how much money the economy gets. Our dollar is continually artificially inflated by the government running off more than it should. In the late 20's, the gov realized they had been running off too much cash, so they decreased production by a lot. This decrease caused the depression, just as their increases earlier on caused booming of the market.

Because we have a centralized banking system, the government controls all of our economic lives, able to manipulate them at will.

Here is an article about the causes of the depression:
http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdcandc.html

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Because we have a centralized banking system, the government controls all of our economic lives, able to manipulate them at will.

If we didn't have a banking system, you wouldn't have any money, except maybe for the gold you could squirrel away in your mattress.

 

[Pacridge]

If we didn't have a banking system, you wouldn't have any money, except maybe for the gold you could squirrel away in your mattress.

Sounds like the making of some really hard, lumpy mattresses. Oh, and a really bad economic system.

 

[Gabo]

If we didn't have a banking system, you wouldn't have any money, except maybe for the gold you could squirrel away in your mattress.

Yes, because there is no such thing as a banking system based on gold.....


O wait, that's what everyone used to use!