Absolutely Out of Control [Archive] - Spearboard.com - The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Boating Social Media Forum

Mikerotch

02-13-2007, 11:43 AM

You know we're in trouble when the majority of people asked can't answer the simple question "How much did our government make last year."

I suppose you could take that two ways, but for the record, the government did make billions last year, via the printing presses. What the average citizen doesn't understand is the economics of such printing. When the fed prints money, they are in effect taxing us without our knowledge as the additional bills dilute the value of our existing bills. Couple that with the new rules that conceal how much they are printing and we are screwed to depths we can't possibly predict.

Answer: 0$ Now on ther the other hand they did TAKE billions in taxes which was promply spent

You are quite accurate in that they can not , by definition, create wealth, they can only take it and redistribute it with the given inefficiencies and corruption present to skim additional percentages.

Yeah, that's hilarious. You don't need the military, police, fire protection, public roads, a justice system, an education system, etc. Every man for himself will work just great.

Bill, I'm quite sure that you will nearly collapse at the thought, but # 6 in your list would most definitely be better off without public administration. Any level of objectivity would lead one to conclude that private institutions are better providers of education, so the only case the public advocates can make is that of availability. Given that the private sector operates far more cost effectively, it is logical to conclude that if the task of educating were left in private hands we would all be better off. In other words, if we can pay for it publicly, we could certainly pay for it privately because the cost would be, and is, most certainly lower.

Mikerotch, privately and publicly educated

Bill McIntyre

02-13-2007, 12:19 PM

Bill, I'm quite sure that you will nearly collapse at the thought, but # 6 in your list would most definitely be better off without public administration. Any level of objectivity would lead one to conclude that private institutions are better providers of education, so the only case the public advocates can make is that of availability. Given that the private sector operates far more cost effectively, it is logical to conclude that if the task of educating were left in private hands we would all be better off. In other words, if we can pay for it publicly, we could certainly pay for it privately because the cost would be, and is, most certainly lower.

Mikerotch, privately and publicly educated

Well, while I'm not willing to engage in a discussion with someone who makes blanket statements that government should be abolished, I am willing to talk about what activities are properly the responsibility of government.

In my 20 years of teaching college economics, every text I used, and some of them were by very conservative economists, had a chapter that was titled something like "Market Failures" and gave examples of activities in which the free market did not produce the optimum result for society. One of the examples was always externalities.

In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit from an economic transaction that parties "external" to the transaction receive. Externalities can be either positive, when an external benefit is generated, or negative, when an external cost is imposed upon others.

Education is an example of a transaction which produces positive externalities. If an individual purchases education for his kids, they receive a private benefit, but there is also an external benefit to the society in which they live. They are more productive, are better informed voters, are less likely to rob or mug their neighbors, etc. All of society benefits from having a better educated population.

But then the problem is that when I purchase education and produce an external benefit for others, they are not willing to compensate me for that benefit. If education is left to the free market, less than the optimum amount will be purchased and produced. If left to the free market, far fewer kids would be in grades K-12 than are there now, and society as a whole would suffer.

So because most people agree with this principle, government taxes us and provides "free" public education for everyone. Of course its not free- we just pay for it a different way, but a hell of a lot more people get educated than if we left it to the private market, and we are better off because of it.

In your particular situation, it may well be better for you or your kids to pay for a private education as long as public education is still in existence. But if private education is all that is available, the schools better have high fences and well armed security guards.

If forced, I guess I could find and paste in some graphs of marginal and total benefits and costs such as those usually used to accompany this lecture in class, but I doubt that would help.

Bill McIntyre

02-13-2007, 01:21 PM

Mikerotch

02-13-2007, 04:26 PM

Bill, thank God you are back. For the record, I have made no statement advocating the abolition of the government. I have; however, made numerous statements advocating the abolition of many portions of our government. Specifically, every function that is outside the parameters set by our Constitution. Otherwise, you end up with thousands of bills affecting us negatively, i.e. those listed in the search at the beginning of this thread.
Virtually everyone of them, when boiled down, are reallocating resources because politicians don't like what the free market does. The unseen cost of these items is no doubt in the hundreds of billions of dollars. See "bridge to nowhere", "Iraq war", etc., adnauseum.
Meanwhile, back to education. Assuming there is a "right" to education, and that there are seen and unseen benefits to said education, all of which would take us down additional roads, then what I have stated is entirely logical. One, the free market is better suited to provide higher quality and lower cost. This is universally true, in spite of what some college courses may teach. Please see economies of "free" nations versus economies of socialist/communist states. Any time it does not provide top quality or lowest price, it is always due to government involvement and its accompanying monopolistic results. For an example, please compare the U.S. Post Office with U.P.S. or Fed-Ex. Externality is a moot point in this discussion, as I am not advocating non-education as an option. I am simply saying, if any given state who believes that education is a "right" would simply divide their budget by the number of students they have and provide these funds for private education, the cost would go down and the quality would go up.

But if private education is all that is available, the schools better have high fences and well armed security guards.

And why would this be ? Are we not involving the same students ?

If forced, I guess I could find and paste in some graphs of marginal and total benefits and costs such as those usually used to accompany this lecture in class, but I doubt that would help.

It would not help, for I am not advocating "non-education". I simply advocate a better way to provide a higher quality service at a lower cost. Those who oppose must do so based solely on their loss of control. Surely parents and students can not choose educational options which are beneficial to them, we must all have bureaucrats make those decisions for us. Bill, I would simply argue that state run education is a poor product at a high cost. If we are to pay for each child's education then at least let us introduce competition into the system so that quality can be maximized and costs can be minimized. Not to mention the added benefit of specialized education so that each child can get what their parents want as opposed to this "all things to all people" approach. It is a foolish man who does the same thing over and over and expects different results. Year after year we keep throwing more tax money into new "programs" and we get students who are worse and worse off.

Mikerotch, privacy advocate

Mikerotch

02-13-2007, 04:52 PM

Forgive me, but I can't help myself. I taught too long, and having given an example of an activity with positive externalities (education), I just know that there are those waiting with bated breath for an example of negative externalities. "The easiest example is pollution. An auto manufacturer incurs private costs of production for steel, plastic, glass, rubber, labor, etc. He adds up the private cost, marks it up to make a profit, and the buyer pays a price that reflects private costs only."

"But the manufacturing process also produced external costs not borne by the car maker or buyer. Maybe he pollutes the air and causes cancer and birth defects for hundreds of miles downwind. Maybe he takes in clean water and then dumps hot polluted water into a stream, ruining the livelihood of fishing guides and causing disease for those who eat the fish. Those external costs are borne by people not a party to the market transaction (they didn't buy the car) and are not reflected in the price of the car."

I had not read this when I posted my last response, but again, I am not advocating "noneducation", only better education via private resources. For the record, without bureaucrats, all of the people in the last paragraph would have legal recourse against said manufacturer, and given a functional system that protected private property rights the likelihood of said violation of other's property would be reduced. Also, by not paying the outrageous costs
(both seen and unseen) to keep up with regulations and regulators, more money and resources would be available to produce more efficient, cleaner products. Let me provide you with an example of modern "EPA" philosophy. As a "for profit" company which operates tractor trailer trucks, we have a huge incentive to operate our trucks as efficiently as possible. Our EPA, in their infinite wisdom, has dictated that all trucks meet certain emission standards that are arbitrary at best. In order to meet these new "standards" most engine manufacturers have employed technology such as "exhaust gas recirculation" systems. The standards are written to reduce the amount of emissions per gallon burned and the new engines meet the standards. Unfortunately, the new engines get approximately 2 MPG less than the old technology, so the total emissions are increased, because far more gallons are burned. Meanwhile, our fuel costs with new engines would be up by approx 40%. That's not all. The new systems foul the engine oil at twice the rate of old engines, thus oil changes are required twice as often. Meanwhile, none of us who were in the market for new trucks are anymore (because we can't afford the costs) so the new truck and engine manufacturers are taking it you know where. Bill, I hate to say it, but government just can not get anything right. The end result of what they attempt inevitably ends up the opposite of what they try. Just like the discussions of fish regulations. Based on reasonable estimations of bycatch rates, one thing is for certain. In order to bring home 100 lbs of fish, a minimum of 120-150 lbs of fish must be killed.

Mikerotch, advocate of eating all dead fish, not 66%
(wiser use of resources)

Bill McIntyre

02-13-2007, 05:19 PM

I am simply saying, if any given state who believes that education is a "right" would simply divide their budget by the number of students they have and provide these funds for private education, the cost would go down and the quality would go up.

The positive externality argument really doesn't address the question of education being a right. It says that making sure everyone is educated is beneficial to society, not just to the individuals.

As to abolishing public education and providing the same funds, presumably through vouchers, for private education- will government have any control over curriculum in your scheme? I sure hope so, because I don't want my tax dollars spent teaching kids that the world was created intact a few thousand years ago, or that Noah getting two of every species on earth onto a large wooden boat is anything more than a parable. I don't want my tax dollars being spent promoting a particular religion or sect and telling kids that everyone who doesn't go along is doomed to burn in hell. I don't want my tax dollars being spent teaching kids that some races are inferior.

But I do want my tax dollars to ensure that every kid learns math, reading, history, and other subjects necessary to keep us competitive.

If government has any say at all over curriculum, then how are the private schools going to differ from the public schools that we have now?

Also, right now private schools can kick out problem kids and pick and choose whom they accept. When all schools are private, what will happen to the kids that are left over after the private schools pick and choose?

And why would this be ? Are we not involving the same students?

You missed the important point about positive externalities. If people can't capture the entire benefit from paying for an activity they buy less of it. If we let people pick and choose whether to go to school and made them pay for it, then fewer kids will go. That's why your private school will need a high fence and well armed guards to protect it from being ransacked by all the kids roaming the streets.

Bill, I would simply argue that state run education is a poor product at a high cost. If we are to pay for each child's education then at least let us introduce competition into the system so that quality can be maximized and costs can be minimized. Not to mention the added benefit of specialized education so that each child can get what their parents want as opposed to this "all things to all people" approach.

I'm glad you mentioned that quality issue and in particular the "all things to all people" subject, because I can use examples from our local school district where my wife taught for over 30 years.

South Orange County is a very affluent area, although with pockets of poverty, generally Hispanic. It is also a very conservative area. We have a lot of private schools, most of them with some religious affiliation, and they are expensive. Many people choose to send their kids to these schools, partly to make sure they won't have to sit next to a Hispanic, and partly because they think the kid will get a better education. And of course they like the crowd control advantage, because the schools are free to accept or kick out whomever they choose, so they feel that their kids won't be held back because the teacher has to "waste" time with a problem kid.

For many years my wife taught GATE (gifted and talented education) history in a Middle School. Then she moved on to a high school where she taught Advanced Placement US History. She took it very seriously, working about 60 hours per week, and her highest pass rate on this nationally normed exam was 89.2%, while the national average on AP US runs around 53 to 54%. The high school where she taught offered 23 AP subjects.

Throughout those years at Middle School and High School, she would see parents transferring their kids back from the private schools into her classes because they wanted to make sure their kids got a great education and were competitive for the best universities. Most of the time she found that these kids were quite far behind. "One size fits all" was precisely the problem at the private schools. They had nice classroom behavior and few kids had to sit next to a Hispanic unless he or she was exceptional, but the curriculum was just a nice middle of the road curriculum aimed at the average kid. There was very little offered to challenge the exceptional kid who wanted to stretch. There is no way these schools can offer 23 AP Courses.

I can't speak for your school district in Georgia, but I get sick of hearing that public schools provide a poor product at a high cost. I think I heard the other day that California is 14th from the bottom state in per pupil spending on education, and I can believe it, as my wife had to teach large classes in a portable classroom with a leaky roof with a moldy carpet and share a portable head with her students. But in spite of that, she and the other teachers at her school got a lot of students accepted at Harvard, the other Ivys, Stanford, etc.

Now that my wife is retired, she spends a lot of time at the stable with her true love (an Appaloosa) and of course there are always lots of teenage girls doing the horse thing. Many of them go to a large prestigious Catholic High school, built with donations from very wealthy parents who wanted to get their kids away from public education. They tell her that its the easiest school in the area to score drugs.

jackpine savage

02-13-2007, 05:22 PM

Mikerotch- Are you saying all private schools are better than public?

TaxPhd

02-13-2007, 05:51 PM

I can't speak for your school district in Georgia, but I get sick of hearing that public schools provide a poor product at a high cost.

At the universities where I have taught, the vast majority of my students have come from public schools. Some have received great educations. Most haven't. Public schools can certainly provide good education, as well as poor.

Here in Georgia, the Hope Scholarship creates huge incentives for grade inflation. Lots of students start their college careers with a 3.0 GPA from high school and they are functionally illiterate. Sad, really. Wish I had a solution.

chuam

02-13-2007, 06:46 PM

Private education can be great but so can public. It all depends on the area. The school district I went to from 4th-8th grade was one of the top in the state. I went to high school at a jesuit prep school. Did I get a better education than my friends who went to public school? Maybe. I think the big difference was that the parents who sent us to the private schools valued education more than some of the parents who only send their kids to public schools. I think it is this value of education (at least in my family) that helped in my education.

And yes when you go to a rich kids school it is easier to get better drugs.

firefyterx

02-13-2007, 06:58 PM

firefyterx

02-13-2007, 07:00 PM

Im all for vouchers to send your kids where you want. Many of the public schools wouldn't be suitable for training dogs.

bikewrench

02-13-2007, 07:20 PM

You have the rights to vote and bear arms. You have the right to the pursuit of 'happiness' (whatever that is). But it may surprise many of you to know that there is no legal "right" to an education. Well actually there is, but only for a small sub-set of students and even this special case is only a few decades old; the only citizens who have a legal "right" to an education are those who have been diagnosed with either a physical disability or a learning disability, none of the rest of us have any "right" to an education. In fact, we have to be forced by law to get an education. That's right, it is illegal not to go to school. Why? Because left to our own devices, many of us would not get educated. Many parents, for many reasons, would not send their kids to school every morning. Left up to them, most kids sure as hell would not go. So society has to force them to go. As was alluded to earlier, it benefits society that everyone become as educated as possible. The government has to be intimately involved or it would not happen. Education by its very nature is not a private matter it is a social institution.

bikewrench

02-13-2007, 07:23 PM

Im all for vouchers to send your kids where you want. Many of the public schools wouldn't be suitable for training dogs.
I am wondering where you get that opinion from. Other than whatever time you spent as a student, how much time as an adult do you have in any public school?

Mikerotch

02-13-2007, 07:52 PM

The positive externality argument really doesn't address the question of education being a right. It says that making sure everyone is educated is beneficial to society, not just to the individuals.

Bill, we have no argument here. Assume we both believe that there are benefits to eating at McDonalds. Now, should we take my car, a 1974 Chrysler New Yorker, that gets 7.8 MPG or should we take yours, a 2008 Mercedes with 46 airbags and gets 32 MPG. Remember, we have to split the costs.

With regard to Noah and the crowd, for everything you dislike, I'm sure I can find at least as many things that I dislike. For example, I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the theory of evolution as it is taught in most curriculums is categorically impossible by simply explaining the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it precludes the possibility of such. But the bottom line is there is no curriculum that would satisfy each of us, thus it is not right for either of us to be forced to pay for the other's likes. Your eloquent point regarding the teaching of "creation" via taxpayer dollars is just as offensive to many "agnostics" as your teaching of "Godless evolution" is to many "theists". Bill, if you reread your post you make it perfectly clear that you want your money used the way you want your money used. I want the exact same thing for you. And for me. That can only be done through private sector. Your section regarding your wife makes it even clearer. Many parents made the choice to move their kids to the place they were best served, which in this case was public. (Probably not because of the system, but the individual teacher(s) ) Many parents never have that choice. They are stuck at the mercy of the "system" with no chance to reward those educators who do an excellent job. Instead, their kids and in effect, their money are compelled to go to a substandard school which would no doubt be rooted out by normal market conditions were the "monopoly" not provided by the state.

Mikerotch- Are you saying all private schools are better than public?

Absolutely not.

Mikerotch, Supporter of Bill Mc's right to do things his way, so long as he does not infringe on someone else's right to do things their way.

Bill McIntyre

02-13-2007, 08:08 PM

Bill, if you reread your post you make it perfectly clear that you want your money used the way you want your money used. I want the exact same thing for you. And for me. That can only be done through private sector.

Wait one. You said

if any given state who believes that education is a "right" would simply divide their budget by the number of students they have and provide these funds for private education, the cost would go down and the quality would go up.

That is using public money and giving it to the private sector. That is not using my money the way I want it used, or using it the way the collective public wants it used as expressed by their elected officials. That is taking my tax dollars and giving them to some private school to use in any way it wants.

Mikerotch

02-13-2007, 08:13 PM

Here in Georgia, the Hope Scholarship creates huge incentives for grade inflation. Lots of students start their college careers with a 3.0 GPA from high school and they are functionally illiterate. Sad, really. Wish I had a solution.

Taxphd,
There is a solution. It's called the free market. The Hope Scholarship is another classic example of good intentions with backwards results. When our illustrious Govenor Zell Miller started it, it sounded great. Encourage good grades by rewarding them with free college tuition. (An idea rooted in free market thinking - that is : reward good, discourage bad). Now, here is how it plays out. My son, a sophmore at the University of Georgia (Go Dawgs) graduates from a superb college prep curriculum, Honors with Distinction. (Legitimate, no grade inflation) He scores a perfect 5 on his AP Calculus exam along with other AP credits. He gets to Georgia with multiple credits under his belt, so exempts several courses. During his first semester, he takes Calculus 3, Chemistry, Some hard English, a couple of outrageous engineering courses and followed that with Differential Equations, physics, etc. Needless to say, he made a couple of C's and poof, no more Hope. Meanwhile, some of his buddies who are drinking like me in my prime are taking "Recreational Studies" and the like and the state gladly subsidizes their tuition. I'm out an extra 6K this year, AND I'm still helping pay for the drunks. Meanwhile, at least one friend of his opted out of the engineering program because he couldn't take a chance on loosing HOPE. (Which by the way, played a major role in inflating college costs, which is why at his family's income level, he had to have it.)
Another case of well-intentioned programs that have opposite effects.
Meanwhile, our legislators are writing more crap as we speak.

Mikerotch, Discouraged Free Market Advocate

jackpine savage

02-13-2007, 08:26 PM

I still don't see why a private school is better for my child than my local school system. The school system in my town is better than a hell of a lot of private schools with 80-85% graduates heading on to universities with a good number hitting the Ivy League. Why would I want to send my child to a private school and how will it do better?

Bill McIntyre

02-13-2007, 08:28 PM

The problem with Government and entitlements social security, healthcare and the like is that people become dependant on the government. They become less and less self sufficient and us that are working end up paying for those who don't want to work. I have no problem with education or helping someone down on their luck SHORT term. But NO ONE should get a free ride. This pork barrel spending will be the downfall of our country.

Yeah, God forbid that those old farts receiving Social Securtity get a free ride. The damn deadbeats should have to work till they die, and that will happen sooner if we make them work.

The poverty rate among those over 65 was 35% in 1959, but its just over 10% now, largely due to Social Security.

A study in 1997 found that before social security benefits, 47.6% of the elderly would have been below the poverty line, but after social security, only 11.9% were.

You say that government is paying for those who don't want to work, but do you really think most old people can get jobs, no matter how bad they want them? There is a hell of a lot of age discrimination preventing the elderly from working, even when they want to.

There were several years during my working life when I made the maximum taxable income for Social Security, and my grand benefit is the princely sum of $13,992 per year.

Sorry about my free ride.

Mikerotch

02-13-2007, 08:29 PM

That is using public money and giving it to the private sector. That is not using my money the way I want it used, or using it the way the collective public wants it used as expressed by their elected officials. That is taking my tax dollars and giving them to some private school to use in any way it wants.

Point Scored. But your group is the one that wants public money used for education. Therefore, your group wants to take MY tax money and give them to some public school to use in any way IT wants. And you are right, the collective public does want it that way, but that DOES NOT mean that it is the most cost effective, quality driven, or in some nebulous way, better. One of my purposes is to show people that there is a better way. Following your implication regarding the collective public, I assume that if I get 51% of the elected officials to concurr, then we can have state sponsored prayer meetings, right? I hope not. Bottom line Bill : You pay taxes and I pay taxes. You want the right to have your taxes go your way, but the thought of me having the same options is abhorent. That, my friend, is the problem with "liberal" thinking. That is also the problem with what passes today as "conservative" thinking. In a nutshell, you want everyones tax dollars to go to "evolutionary teaching" and many conservatives want everyone's tax dollars to go to "Creation" teaching. As a Libertarian, I want your money to go where you want it, and their's to go where they want it. If the state stays out of it, then that is exactly what happens. That sounded pretty good, you can quote that if you'd like, no charge.

Mikerotch, Speaker of Truth

jackpine savage

02-13-2007, 08:32 PM

I still don't see where the evidence is that the private sector can necessarily run a better school than the public sector. There are good private schools and there are bad ones same with public schools

Mikerotch

02-13-2007, 08:49 PM

Why would I want to send my child to a private school and how will it do better?

Jack,

Obviously some public schools are better than others, just like some private schools are better than others. If you took the total cost of educating children at your school and divided it by the number of kids, and came up with a number of say, $ 8,000.00, my contention is that you could take that $ 8,000.00 and through private institutions provide your children with a better education. The element of competition forces service providers to constantly improve quality and minimize costs. For example, if you go to McDonalds and a big Mac costs $ 5.00 and is only half cooked, you are likely to visit Burger King next time for a $2.00 Whopper that is cooked well. That possibility is what keeps McDonalds on their toes, for fear of loosing you to B.K. If they do not realize that things such as cleanliness and properly prepared foods and reasonable costs are important to you the customer, then the free market will force them out and provide incentive for someone, perhaps Wendy's, to move in. If; however, the local government will not allow B.K.and Wendy's to move in, then you have a problem. McDonalds is very likely to care a little less about quality and price because you have no where else to go. That, in essence, is the deck that is stacked against public schools. They are a McDonalds with no Burger King. Now, in fairness, should McDonalds have top notch employees who take pride in what they do,( like many public school teachers ) the Big Mac may be pretty good, but the market dynamics are not in place to make it the best it can be. I will guarantee you that should all things be equal, a McDonalds with a Burger King next door will provide a better combination of quality, service, and price, than one that stands alone.

Mikerotch, Hamburger Competition Advocate

jackpine savage

02-13-2007, 08:58 PM

I don't know about that, 8,000 is not much. There is a private day school in my town, very good school. They charge 18,000/year for each student. We may have different ideas of what to expect of a private school. Up here when you talk private education people think Andover and Exeter. The public high school here sends between 6-12 students to the Ivys and 80-85% of graduates to college. You think a private school will do better for the money, I don't. I do agree that there is a serious probelem with some schools in this country and I really dont know what the solution is.

Also when talking about financing schools. Evreyone pays for the public school system not just those who send their child to the school. While that is not necessarily fair the idea is everyone benefits from an educated populace. My mother no longer has children in the school systems yet her property taxes continue to pay for the school system. Public schools are open to all members of society and all members contribute. If you wish to school your child in a different manner that is your perogative but that doesn't entitle you to determine how your taxes should be spent vis-a-vis education anymore than an anti-war activist can decide not to pay taxes that support a war he opposes and donates the money to charity instead.

Mikerotch

02-13-2007, 09:51 PM

Jack,

The $ 8,000.00 was just a number. I'm sure in Ma the number is higher, but it doesn't matter. The point was that whatever the cost is, a system that is subject to competition will provide a better overall product for the same amount of money. Should some people want to spend more, that would be their option. Meanwhile, there is one contention that keeps popping up which is a falacy. "everyone benefits from an educated populace". As if private educational systems preclude us from having such. I am not advocating an uneducated populace. I am advocating a system which permits the free market to root out substandard schools, teachers, curriculums, etc. Assuming your school system is as good as you say, then you would not necessarily see a significant improvement, although I am certain your overall cost per student would go down simply because people tend to take better care of things they own. Example : Private charter buses are usually cleaner than public school or transit busses.

Public schools are open to all members of society and all members contribute. If you wish to school your child in a different manner that is your perogative

Here is the clincher : Under the current system, poorer people ( still paying, none the less ) have only one option - public school. Once again, we see that something started by government with "good intentions" actually has the opposite effect. It compels many lower class people into a lower level education, thus reducing their chance for upward mobility.Wealthier people have two options - public or private. Under the system I would propose, both options are now on the table for poor people. Granted, if the public portion of the financing were not significant, some high priced private schools may still be out of reach, but at a minimum they now have some choices.
Under such a system, the price for education could not go up and would quite likely go down. Everyone has the same potential schools to go to, whereas now their choices are limited. The quality of all schools, formerly public and formerly private would likely go up as competition for students and their dollars would compel them to. Just like hamburgers.

Mikerotch, private school advocate for all.

Bill McIntyre

02-13-2007, 11:20 PM

You seem to think that it will be an improvement if everyone gets exactly the education product that they want. I don't agree.If the country is to survive, it must have a common data base and a common frame of reference, and it would be nice if that data was something close to correct.

Many Musllms choose to go to Madrassas where the spend the day praying and memorizing the Koran. If given the choice, many Christian parents would choose schools where their kids spent all day praying and memorizing the bible. Its not benefitting the Muslims, and it would not benefit us.

Staying with that thought, many of the Christian parents would not feel like it was a loss if their kids did not learn math and science, because they are sure that Armageddon is coming soon and then the right kind of believers will be lifted whole to heaven in the Rapture.

Call me a cynic, but I'd prefer to hedge our bets and have the kids learn math and science just in case.

Maybe other parents would choose to send their kids to schools run by the Klan, and they could be taught that abolition was a mistake and should be rectified.

Letting parents choose the education they want could be a disaster if we hope to remain the nation that we have been. Of course you may believe that our nation doesn't deserve preserving in its present form. If so, there is probably not a thing I could say to you.

Under a voucher system like any so far proposed in the real world, the poor would still have only one option, public school. Private school costs more than the value of the voucher. The vouchers would just subsidize the middle class and the wealthy who would have sent their kids to private school anyway. Meanwhile, the wealthy who have some power to change things would no longer have interest in public schools, so they would only get worse.

Whether school is public or private, a huge factor is parent involvement. My wife noticed that on Back-to-School nights and similar events, most parents of AP students showed up, while most parents of her "regular" class students did not. This was probably not entirely due to random chance.

If all the wealthier and more educated parents have their kids in private schools, then they won't really care what goes on in public schools. If no one who matters cares, then the public system will only get worse. If you don't care, then you are very short sighted.

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 08:58 AM

Letting parents choose the education they want could be a disaster if we hope to remain the nation that we have been.

And there we have it. Obviously it was government bureaucrats who built this nation and there is no doubt they care more for children than parents do. We should give control of every aspect of our lives to them so that we can be protected from our own stupidity. I can not believe that you could possibly say such a thing. Once again, you prove the liberal position. Total control of all of us who don't have enough sense to run our own lives. We have enough sense to make the money to fund everything, just not enough sense to allocate it correctly. If I disagree with what you want to teach my kids, to hell with me. Just send my money and pay for your program. And if I'm nice, I can still send my kids to a private school and pay for that to. I must give you credit though Bill, at least you are man enough to say it. Most liberals are to gutless to actually say what they think.

Mikerotch, Pissed in the A.M.

Bill McIntyre

02-14-2007, 09:06 AM

OK fine, send you kids to a school run by the Klan, send them to one advocating abolishing the bill of rights, send them to one preaching that all the niggers should be sent back to Africa, send them to one where all they do is memorize the bible. After all, we can't interfere with your right to run your own life. I hope you are happy with the result. I'll be in Europe.

You better stock up on freeze dried food and ammunition.

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 09:40 AM

Bill, don't go to Europe, the spearfishing sucks. Besides, all the boats are filled with "niggers" on their way back to Africa anyway. And I want to invite you to tonight's Klan meeting, we have David Duke speaking on how to undermine the Bill of Rights, right after Bible study.

Mikerotch, FDFA - Mart Manager (Freeze Dried Food and Ammunition)
"Let me help you with all your survival needs"

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 09:56 AM

Also Bill,
Who cares more for the new grandbaby in your arms ? Does the local school board Bureaucrat, or is it possibly her Mom, Dad, GrandPa, etc. ? Who, statistically is more likely to have her best interests at heart ? I thought so. If the bureaucrat is a top notch person, I'm sure they would find employment with the school of your choice, which you could seek out. If the bureaucrat is a radical fundamentalist whom you can't stand, then you would be free to find a school who had radical atheists, which I'm not partial to. You see Bill, I want you to have your choice and I would appreciate the opportunity to do likewise.

Mikerotch, Baby Advocate

Bill McIntyre

02-14-2007, 10:46 AM

Also Bill,
Who cares more for the new grandbaby in your arms ? Does the local school board Bureaucrat, or is it possibly her Mom, Dad, GrandPa, etc. ? Who, statistically is more likely to have her best interests at heart ?

Yep, her parents and I have her best interests at heart. That's why we all want her to grow up in a society united by a common educational background and where schools teach skills and facts rather than religion and hatred as they wish. Religion or lack thereof should be taught in the home rather than in school. I thought the founding fathers were pretty clear on separation of church and state. I guess that is a problem for some people, so they want to use private schools not associated with the state. If substantial numbers of our kids end up in Christian versions of Madrassas, we will regret it.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, I would not seek out a school teaching radical atheism. I want a school that teaches science. The Catholic Church does not think evolution is inconsistent with religion, and I don't either. Many scientists are religious, but they realize that many stories in the bible are just parables told by primitive men to other primitive men and are not to be taken literally.

Tell me, do you really believe the Ark story? Is so, just say so and I'll know that we have no basis for further discussion.

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 11:59 AM

Bill, would you just admit that what you and the other statists want is control of everything ? I can not believe you can take a discussion regarding a different vehicle of delivery and turn it ( and me) into a radical fundamentalist hell bent on cramming the Bible down children's throats. I propose a system that allows parents to have the ultimate control over when and what and how their children are taught and I do in fact have a basis for it. It is rooted in the concept that there is a God and that He has given children to parents who are stewards of those children. Now, that may be completely false, but one would have to admit that it is at least a possibility. Your perspective; however, is that somehow another group of organic protoplasms for some reason have a better idea of how to raise and educate said children and should have full access to the parent's funds to do as they see fit. Theoretically, there is no basis for what you believe at all, except that is what you believe and you are so certain in your arrogance that we will all be better off if we simply hand over control to you and the "experts".
What logic dictates that your philosophy should take precedence over mine with regard to my children ? Under what authority should you be able to forcefully take resources from me to educate your children and mine by your wishes ? The issues regarding church and state are moot. If I take tax money and force feed your children any religious dogma, I have violated the 1st ammendment. Likewise, if you take the same money, and by default, force feed poor children (the ones stuck in public school) a dogma that precludes the possibilty that there is a God, you are guilty of the same offense. Can you not understand that I am not the stereotypical "pro-life" Christian Right Republican that thinks the state should cram religion down someone's throat ? I simply advocate that if we are to have a system of publicly financed education, it should at the very least be used in such a way to introduce competition to the market and should allow those who are paying for it to have the product they desire. You, on the otherhand, prefer a monopolistic system with no choice for the consumer ( parents ) and idealogy that is prescribed by the whims of the current administrators, whoever they may be. If you get an evolutionist, you're happy and I'm not. If you happen to get a Christian who believes God created the world, then you are unhappy and I'm still not happy , because I don't want the state educating my children. I would prefer to choose who, when, where, how and what my children are taught. Your system precludes that possibility, so just admit it. Even though you don't know a damn thing about me, you are certain that a group of "professional" educators ( whom you don't know either) know better for my children than me. Now, rather than admit that I have legitimate points, please respond with some more venom. Might I suggest, racist, inbred, redneck, religious whacko hellbent on saving the world. Or maybe southern rebel, with a twinge of child molestor thrown in ? I must go now, we have another boatload to get ready before tonight's klan meeting.

Mikerotch, Wanting the best for Bill's Granddaughter, but not forcing my will
on anyone.

amnestia

02-14-2007, 12:17 PM

I'm a highschool student that was skimming through this post and saw a part of your post below

I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the theory of evolution as it is taught in most curriculums is categorically impossible by simply explaining the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it precludes the possibility of such.

Could you PM me and tell me how this works? I'm quite baffled and beyond intrigued. Thanks!

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 12:19 PM

And yes, for the record, I believe the ark story. And I also believe we are distant cousins, so I will try to be nicer to you. I do not, for the record, believe that we have a common ancestor that was a lizard or an amoeba.
With that being said, do you believe in the second law of thermodynamics ?
I do. And it precludes, categorically, the idea that we have any ancestors who were once pond scum. So, if there is no God, and I admit that to be a possibility, somebody better come up with a new "theory" on how we got here. And remember, the leading scientists, the "smartest" people in the world at one time or another have believed all kinds of crap, like the Flat earth boys. There is plenty of reason to believe that our smartest are once again off track, and in more areas than just our origins. If a creation account is not true, eventually someone can disprove it. To date, I have seen far more evidence disproving the so called "theory" of evolution than I have ever seen regarding "creation". There are certainly some hurdles for creationists to overcome, but there are roadblocks to evolutionary theory that can't be overcome, barring divine intervention. I have , for the record, recommended all my children study evolution, for knowledge of things I don't agree with does not scare me in the least. Evolutionists become very uneasy when confronted with the possibility that they may be wrong and the idea that there may be a God and he might want a relationship with them.

Mikerotch, 2nd Law Supporter

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 12:22 PM

Could you PM me and tell me how this works? I'm quite baffled and beyond intrigued. Thanks!

I will be glad to, if you would bare with me it may be this evening, and if you don't mind I will put it up here so my dear friend Bill McIntyre can read it. God Bless him.

Mikerotch, Lover of the thermodynamics

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 03:38 PM

After all, we can't interfere with your right to run your own life. I hope you are happy with the result. I'll be in Europe.

It just hit me again, that is, the problem. You "liberals", for lack of a better term, really do get offended when one of us stands up and has the audacity to request that you leave us the hell alone. Why is that ? After all, I'm not imposing my views on you in the slightest, outside of suggesting we all live by the guidelines originally set forth in the Constitution. I suggest freedom, you advocate compulsory behavior. Now I see why Europe would be appealing. Maybe as you progress in your leftist thinking you could consider Venezuela, North Korea or even Cuba. The diving should be the best there.

Mikerotch, Hoping Bill Mc will Consider Freedom.

bikewrench

02-14-2007, 03:39 PM

Mikerotch, here is the point that you are refusing to see, although Bill is trying really hard; Education is NOT for the benefit of the individual student or his/her family. Education is for the benefit of society. Our society (based upon the U.S. Constitution) decides what the needs and benefits of education will be. I repeat, it is not for you. If you do not like it too bad. Sorry to tell you this but that is the way it is.
P.S. I have been teaching science in a public high school for ten years and I have NEVER told my kids that God does not exist or that Evolution precludes it. You and your wacky creationist are delusional and stupid.

Bikewrench Hoping Mikerotch will stop drinking the koolaide.

Bill McIntyre

02-14-2007, 04:15 PM

And yes, for the record, I believe the ark story.

Have you given any thought at all to the practicality of gathering a male and female of every species on earth and putting them on a boat. How big would that boat have to be? And what about the species in which one of the pair was infertile? Did we just lose a few? Why weren't we told about that?

And how was this to be accomplished in the 40 days and nights of rain that are part of the story? The whole thing just boggles the mind.

I read recently that scientists have evidence of a massive flood on the Tigris (or maybe it was the Euphrates) at about the right time. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation for the existence of the Noah myth. For the writers of the Old Testament, this area WAS THE ENTIRE WORLD, so they would call that a world-wide flood. Explaining the Noah myth that way in no way denies the existence of a God, but simply shows that men of that age tried to make sense of their world with limited knowledge and tools. Doubting that every world written in the bible represents accurate history does not make one a pagan.

Evolutionists become very uneasy when confronted with the possibility that they may be wrong and the idea that there may be a God and he might want a relationship with them.

I guess this shows that you really aren't reading my posts so I'm wasting my time. But once more, many people find no conflict between the existence of a God and evolution, and my Catholic wife happens to be one of them. Catholic doctrine accepts evolution, and the present pope recently reaffirmed it. There are millions of Christians that don't think the world was created in its present form with all the present species few thousand years ago. Not all Christians are superstitious and willfully ignorant.

amnestia

02-14-2007, 04:31 PM

I just don't see how a balancing in energy and an increase in spontaneity hinders the effectiveness of the evolutionary theory.

jackpine savage

02-14-2007, 04:35 PM

It just hit me again, that is, the problem. You "liberals", for lack of a better term, really do get offended when one of us stands up and has the audacity to request that you leave us the hell alone. Why is that ? After all, I'm not imposing my views on you in the slightest, outside of suggesting we all live by the guidelines originally set forth in the Constitution. I suggest freedom, you advocate compulsory behavior. Now I see why Europe would be appealing. Maybe as you progress in your leftist thinking you could consider Venezuela, North Korea or even Cuba. The diving should be the best there.

Mikerotch, Hoping Bill Mc will Consider Freedom.
We bug you because we want your beer

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 04:36 PM

Bike,

Thank you for the enlightenment, but I have obviously not made my point clear, or else you and he just don't understand. I am not advocating the abolition of education. I can say without fear that few people who read this have ever nor will ever spend as much on education as I already have. I believe in education. As a businessman, I am grateful each and every day that I have a good education, as it enables me to have a competitive advantage over other companies that offer similar goods and services. What you don't understand is that free markets are what made this country what it is, not government. As we continue to entrust government with various goods and services, education being one of them, we continue to pay a higher price for an inferior product.

Our society (based upon the U.S. Constitution) decides what the needs and benefits of education will be.

There is no reference to "education" in the U.S. Constitution. I repeat, it is not in the U.S. Constitution. If you do not like it, too bad. Sorry to tell you this, but that is the way it is.

As for your beliefs regarding creation/evolution I really don't care. I have many friends who are devout evolutionists and that is their business, as your thoughts are yours. I never said you said there was no God. I personally don't care what you or anybody else teaches, so long as it is not to my kids at my expense. That is my point. Let me try one more example. Suppose your state implements a "Spearfishing Tax" of some amount, say $ 50.00. Then suppose the funds are used to facilitate an "Antispearfishing" campaign designed to foster support for the abolition of spearfishing. They are then forcing you to pay for something against your beliefs, which in essence, is the practice of totalitarian regimes. I suspect you would not like that and would cry "foul". That is my point with regard to public education. We are all forced to pay for something that in many cases we do not believe in, right or wrong. Now, granted, that is the nature of government, we will always pay for many things we don't believe in, but that is precisely why the role of government must be minimized and why our founders worded the Constitution the way they did. You see, I'm not about forcing you to teach creationism at your expense or even at my expense, but the devout public school proponents are very much about teaching all kinds of things at my expense, many of which I disagree with. A simpler, better way is to simply let each parent have control of their own children.I must go now, more Koolaid to prepare.

Mikerotch, Wacky, Delusional, Stupid, Koolaid drinker

jackpine savage

02-14-2007, 04:38 PM

How do you explain the excellent education that can be had at many of the state run universities in this country. They are run by the governmente yet the produce a top tier education.

jackpine savage

02-14-2007, 04:45 PM

Bike,

As we continue to entrust government with various goods and services, education being one of them, we continue to pay a higher price for an inferior product.

Seem y post about state run universities

That is my point with regard to public education. We are all forced to pay for something that in many cases we do not believe in, right or wrong. Now, granted, that is the nature of government, we will always pay for many things we don't believe in, but that is precisely why the role of government must be minimized and why our founders worded the Constitution the way they did.

Mikerotch, Wacky, Delusional, Stupid, Koolaid drinker

As far as education goes, the individual states determine more in the way of how your child is educated than the federal government. If you were to look at the percentage of federal funds that goes to the Macon shool district you will see it is smaller than the local and state contributions. It is my understanding that most of the decisions dealing with local schools are made on the state and local level.

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 04:50 PM

How do you explain the excellent education that can be had at many of the state run universities in this country. They are run by the governmente yet the produce a top tier education.

Jack,

For the 439th time, I am saying that privatizing any educational institution provides competition and that leads to better products at minimum costs. I agree completely that there are many, many, public schools of various levels that provide a wonderful education. Many of the higher institutions you speak of are, in some respects, similar to private ones. What I mean is, many have substantial "donors" who take great pride in the institution, and demand quality in return for more money, not altogether unlike a "customer". I am the product of such an institution, which according to Bill and Bike should seal the deal that "public" education doesn't work. You see, it produced a radical, fundamentalist, witchdoctor, who has ties to the Klan while simultaneously longing for the days of Jonestown. And Jack, should we get a chance to go spearing one day, I'll buy you a beer afterwards.

Mikerotch, Constitutional Republic Guy

jackpine savage

02-14-2007, 04:56 PM

water temp is 38 degrees here, I have to make do with oystering and clamming.

I am not opposed to experimenting with vouchers on the state level to try to raise the level of performance of schools. I agree with you that some public schools suck and I would rather see someone try to reform them and fail and then try a different approach than just shrug and do nothing.
But I would rather have decent weather to try out my new pole spear than good schools.

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 05:07 PM

It was 56 degrees in Carrabelle this past weekend, but the conditions sucked so bad I didn't even post a report. I was afraid the real story would be depressing, so out of love and admiration for my fellow spearboarders, I didn't post. Besides that, I've been busy taking Stickitfishy and Ironhead's place as the number one guy to bash on this thread that has spiraled out of control. And I agree with you, I would trade a good school or two for some 80 degree water and some Gags, ARS, and Cobias, with a few sheeps thrown in or a Hog.

Mikerotch, Advocate of Spearfishing as Opposed to Arguing.

amnestia

02-14-2007, 05:10 PM

One of the reasons you might not see as many "hurdles" for creation is because it's blatantly disregarded, it's almost entirely dependent on blind faith(believe or don't, what other option is there)? With evolution there are parts many can agree with and many parts in which they won't but overall its survived mass criticism. In regards to the Flat Earth boys that was quite long ago, stories about columbus's time believing in such nonsense is myth, knowledge of earth's spherical shape dates back to the greeks. Even so, the flat earth idea was nothing but unbacked, unsupported, untested conjecture which should not even be on the same table as evolution.

I was raised as a Catholic and went through all the confirmation stuff and such, while learning and gaining knowledge of the world I was able to raise questions in which I bestowed unto my local nuns and priests(they were not able to answer many of these, and the ones they did were more of a "dodgey" answer). One interesting thing was when i brought up the idea of evolution to my local priest, in response he said "God put man on this earth, he may or may not have put us here in the form we are now. He could have put us here tens or thousands of years ago, but nonetheless we were still created by him." In his answer which didn't answer much, isn't there a hint of evolution? Genesis by common knowledge, is a metaphor to teach certain things to the believers, when asked the priest said that 6 days could easily mean 6 thousand years or 60 thousand years.

In either case i'd still like to see a detailed explanation of how the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. BTW the current laws of physics are still up to be altered, even the universal law of gravitation breaks up heavily in the microscopic world.

Bill McIntyre

02-14-2007, 05:11 PM

It is my understanding that most of the decisions dealing with local schools are made on the state and local level.

That is true, for better or for worse. The state of California has made strides in the last few years in standardizing curriculum, but before that, it was pretty much up to the school district. In one case in which I'm sure Mikerotch would have approved, the religious right managed to get its people elected to the school board of a district in North San Diego County and dictated that creationism be taught. They also turned down Federal money for breakfasts at school for poor kids because "kids should eat breakfast with their parents." Of course that meant that many of them simply wouldn't get breakfast, but the principle is what is important.

In a development that indicates the existence of a God after all, so many principals and teacher quit that the public got fed up and voted the Religious Reich types off the board and elected people who restored quality education.

My wife took groups of students back to DC a couple of times for an excellent program called closeup. The program's people take them all around and show them the way government works and the kids get a lot out of it. But one year our district's kids were merged with students from a southern state (I think it was Tennessee, but I wouldn't swear to it) and my wife and all our kids were absolutely amazed to find that the TN kids had never heard of the holocaust. It just wasn't taught in their schools.

This was a real shock to me. I realize that there are holocaust deniers out there, but at least you have to have heard of it before you can deny it happened.

I realize that these kids were from public schools, but I'm afraid that if Mikerotch had his way and all kids could go to private schools that were not accountable in any way for curriculum, there would be a hell of a lot more kids who had never heard of the holocaust and many other things that should be part of our common knowledge.

amnestia

02-14-2007, 05:12 PM

Sorry got kinda off topic.

Bill McIntyre

02-14-2007, 05:16 PM

Mikerotch, Wacky, Delusional, Stupid, Koolaid drinker

Owning up to the problem is the first step.

amnestia

02-14-2007, 05:17 PM

You guys are harsh in this forum.

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 05:33 PM

How big would that boat have to be?

Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It could have been larger because several larger-sized cubits were used.

Have you given any thought at all to the practicality of gathering a male and female of every species on earth and putting them on a boat.

No, fortunately to date I have not been given that task.

And what about the species in which one of the pair was infertile? Did we just lose a few? Why weren't we told about that?

If one of the pair were infertile, barring Divine intervention, We would have lost one. I don't know if we lost a few, and if so I don't know why we weren't told. There are almost an infinite number of things that have not been revealed. I can give you many questions that dwarf that, theologically that is. Like, why does a righteous God permit sin, or why does a righteous God provide salvation to a sinful man ? Can we have freedom of will and be predestined at the same time ?

The whole thing just boggles the mind.

I couldn't agree more. But, in perspective, such an accomplishment would pale in comparison to the intelligence and thought required to piece together 1 DNA molecule.

"The DNA molecule is threaded so fine that it is only possible to see it under high powerful electron microscopes. To get a sense of exactly how long an uncoiled DNA molecule is compared to a typical cell, a cell is magnified 1000 times. At this scale, the total length of all the DNA in the cell's nucleus would be 3 km -- the equivalent distance of the Lincoln Memorial to the capital in Washington, DC.

The human genome comprises the information contained in one set of human chromosomes which themselves contain about 3 billion base pairs (bp) of DNA in 46 chromosomes (22 autosome pairs + 2 sex chromosomes). The total length of DNA present in one adult human is calculated by the multiplication of

(length of 1 bp)(number of bp per cell)(number of cells in the body)

(0.34 × 10-9 m)(6 × 109)(1013)

2.0 × 1013 meters

That is the equivalent of nearly 70 trips from the earth to the sun and back.

2.0 × 1013 meters = 133.691627 astronomical units
133.691627 / 2 = 66.8458135 round trips to the sun "

Bill, If you believe that such a thing can create itself from random chance, you have far more faith than I will ever have.

Mikerotch, Creation Advocate, by default

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 05:39 PM

Owning up to the problem is the first step.
__________________

Can't argue with you there, Bill. How about we go spearfishing sometime? I think it would be a blast to get a genuine leftcoaster over to the Gulf to go out with all my sheet wearing, redneck buddies. What the heck, I'm sure one of us is your size, we'll loan you a sheet and you can take it back to California with you for a souvenir.

Mikerotch, Lover of all God's Creation, including Leftists

amnestia

02-14-2007, 05:43 PM

Small sequences of nucleotides code for amino acids and proteins that have their own specific function and job. After millions perhaps billions of years can these not combine, twist, and change into something greater? Can man not be a product of 4 billion years of fine tuning?

ps. cmon! thermodynamics proof!

bikewrench

02-14-2007, 07:48 PM

There is no reference to "education" in the U.S. Constitution. I repeat, it is not in the U.S. Constitution. If you do not like it, too bad. Sorry to tell you this, but that is the way it is.

I know that, I said as much earlier in this thread in my first post. Education is NOT a right, it is an obligation. We all HAVE to go get one, at least up until age 16 or so. It is the law. When I mentioned the Constitution I was refering to your implication that the government should not have the right to educate your children. The state does have the right to educate you kids because we live in a SOCIETY (look that word up) governed by laws, federal, state, and local. In this country there are federal, state, and local laws that all say that everyone goes to school and learn a (relatively) common set of curriculum that is developed by experts NOT individuals. Experts ARE better at deciding what needs to be taught. EXPERTS are better at whatever they do than would be a layperson. You would not ask the milkman to fix the transmission on you Ford F-250 would you? You would not go to the auto mechanic to fix your blownout ACL would you? Of course not. You would go to some educated expert who has devoted his entire professional life to studying his subject. Someone who reads and converses with other experts. Someone who has studied the history, problems, and successes of her field. Someone who has carried out scientific research in order to improve the field. Why on Earth would some layperson, even if he is a consumer (what does that have to do with anything?) think they can make better decisions? Do you have any idea what it takes to become a Teacher? A Principal? A Superintendent? Do you have any idea where the school curriculum comes from? Do you think we make it up? Here's a friggin' clue, it is the sum of all human knowledge!

That is the philosophical problem with your proposal, What about the practical application...

Ok, its 2015 and we are going to try Mikerotch's ideal educational system.
Let's say that the annual per-student cost for education was $8000. How do we get that money to the consumers? Do we collect taxes like normal then simply issue an $8000 check to every student's family? Well if you have kids you are ok with that but what if you do not have kids or if you are a business? You might not be so happy that the taxes go out but you get nothing in return, how ya going to feel? What about a family that has one student ($8000 check) compared to a family that has, say, five students ($40,000 check)? Assume both families paid about the same in taxes but one family gets much more in return. How ya gonna feel?

Ok, now lets get the kiddies off to school. You load your Honnor Roll student into the Expedition and drive him to the private school of your choice. The five Smith kids down the street stay in bed. Mom has a crack problem and spent her $40,000 on blow, booze, and Lotto tickets, so the kids grow up to become illiterate criminals. How ya gonna feel about that? How does more illiterate criminals help you? What's that you say? Make them spend the money on school! Make them send the kids every day! Who will do that Mike? We took the responsibility of education away from the government remember? Ok you say, don't give the Smiths the money in the first place then. How will that help? They will still grow up to be illiterate criminals.

Maybe we completely eliminate the whole odious idea of taxes, you simply keep X dollars and are left to your own devices to find and finance your kid's education. The family that makes several hundred thousand per year can afford to find a school (maybe up to 40 or 50 miles away)and they can easily pay the tuition and get their kid there every day. But what about the Smith's? Even if she is not on crack, how is the working family going to get their kids to any school, much less have any choice? Even without taxes, no lower middle class family (especially with 3 or 4 students) can afford eight (or six or even four) thousand dollars tuition.
Do you think that 'free enterprise' will create a multitude of inexpensive, high quality schools to choose from in every neighborhood? Within walking distance of every home? That's the kool-aid talking Mike.

Like most systems, the educational one we have is not perfect but it is a lot less imperfect than you hear about on right wing radio. And it is better than anything else out there. If you don't like it run for office, become a volunteer, hell, become a teacher. Go do somthing about it.

Bill McIntyre

02-14-2007, 08:09 PM

Semper Fi, Bikewrench.

I like the reference to a SOCIETY. Individual rights are nice, but some times they must be subjugated to the collective good if we are to be anything but barbarians.

Libertarians want minimal government interference with their lives, but even they would agree that they should not be permitted to murder, rob, or steal. Its just a question of where we draw the line.

The Libertarian thing is interesting since some of its positions would normally be labeled liberal while others would be labeled conservative. The most prominent Libertarian that I can think of is Milton Freedman, the Nobel Prize winning economist. I thinks its safe to say that his economic positions are regarded as conservative, but he frequently said that drugs should be legalized, and that is a position more generally associated with bearded hippy liberal types. I don't know whether it makes me a Libertarian or a liberal, but I tend to agree with him.

bikewrench

02-14-2007, 08:36 PM

Semper Fi to you Bill, welcome back. Your grand daughter is adorable, congradulations. I envy your warm weather, I was at Pendleton for four years (long time ago) miss that weather :cool: .

Mikerotch

02-14-2007, 09:19 PM

ps. cmon! thermodynamics proof!

I have spent some time in trying to find a brief, but relatively thorough explanation of the problem that addresses several of the issues, including open and closed systems. This seems to be a good combination of accurate information that is still readible for lesser intellects such as myself. ( thought you'd like that Bill )

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics – The Law of Entropy

A technical reference to the Second Law notes: The entropy function always increases in the presence of internal irreversibilities for an adiabatic, closed system. In the limiting case of an internally reversible, adiabatic process, the entropy will remain constant. (Wark)

In plain English the Second Law states that entropy (that is, disorder) always increases or remains constant in a closed system. (As a practical matter, for any non-trivial system entropy tends to increase due to irreversible processes.) The entropy of an entire closed system can never decrease within that system. Since the universe can be modeled as a closed system the universe is considered to be entropic – that is, running down.

Implications of the Second Law

The Law of Entropy – that is, disorder – is a dagger aimed at the heart of Darwinian fundamentalism. It has two applications, the entropy of the entire universe considered as a single system, and the entropy of individual, open systems. In considering the significance of entropy for the universe consider the following quote by eminent evolutionary biologist Sir Julian Huxley:

Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution – a single process of self-transformation. (Huxley)

It is difficult to conceive a more direct attack on the law of entropy than this description of evolutionism. What is fascinating is the authors’ declaration that "our present knowledge" forces us to view "the whole of reality" as part of this upwards process. But as the Second Law makes clear, the universe ("the whole of reality"?) is entropic in nature. Contrary to Huxley’s assertion, all relevant scientific knowledge declares the opposite – that the Second Law is overwhelmingly supported by the data. Change, including biological change, does occur, but the transformation is to increasing levels of disorganization, as evolutionary biologists have now shown. (Spetner)

The Law of Entropy demands that we view the universe as "devolving" not "evolving." In combination with the First Law of Thermodynamics the Second Law demands that the universe was most complex and orderly when it first came into existence. Models for the origin of the universe need to incorporate this fundamental fact to be scientifically credible.

The second application of the Law of Entropy on origins theory is the operation of entropy in smaller systems, such as planet earth, or individual life forms. Can entropy be reversed locally, to allow the evolution of life from simpler forms? After all, we observe the growth of complexity (local reduction of entropy) in many small systems, such as the growth of a tree from a seed, or of an adult human from a fetus, or of a house from a pile of lumber and nails. Darwinian fundamentalists argue that evolutionism is compatible with entropy at this level. Anti-creationist physicist Dr. Karl Giberson writes:

The second law applies only to hypothetical "closed" systems, which are systems that do not interact with any energy source outside of themselves. And living systems, by definition, are very interactive with external energy sources... Any time a system experiences an external interaction with an energy source, there can occur numerous apparent violations of the second law, in which order within that system appears to emerge spontaneously and remarkably from disorder. (Giberson)

This is known as the "open systems" argument. Darwinian fundamentalists declare that the Earth is an open system and that this eliminates any problem for Darwinism. They often belittle and ridicule their critics for "misunderstanding" entropy and open systems. (Gish) This may be because they know they are simply failing to address the anti-Darwinian argument regarding entropy.

It is entirely true that an open system is required for entropy to be locally reversed. However, this is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Other conditions must also be present for complexity to develop. Generally an open system decays more swiftly than a closed one.

For example, consider a building that is sealed from the outside environment. Protected within this shield it will still slowly decay. Now open it to the elements - create an open system. Let the sun beat down on it; let lightning strike it; let wind run through it; let rain fall on it. The addition of undirected energy, be it light, kinetic energy, electricity, or anything else, will simply speed up the decay process.

In addition to an open system three other requirements must be met for entropy to be reversed at non-trivial levels:

The energy coming into the system must be harnessed and converted into useful form by "machinery."
A "blueprint" must exist that specifies the reduced entropy state.
Something must link the machinery to the blueprint, driving the use of energy in accordance with the blueprint.
All three requirements must be satisfied. For very simple levels of order such as crystallization or layering of sediments the laws of physics and chemistry and the structure of atoms and matter form an implicit ‘blueprint’ and ‘tooling’ that produces the observed order. This order prevents the formation of more complex order - crystals do not spontaneously evolve to more complex crystals, for example. Natural order driven by natural law thus prevents innovative evolution; it does not cause it.

For complex results the requirements must be highly specified to succeed. For example, a pile of lumber with loose, live, electrical wires flopping around on a construction site will not produce a house. Plugging power drills and band saws into the wires will not produce a house. Dropping blueprints off at the site will not produce a house. Only when workers show up who can read the blueprints and use the machinery, with power and raw materials provided, will the house be built. Moreover, if the wrong materials (tin foil and soap, for example) are provided, the house cannot be built. If there is no power, the house cannot be built. If they have the wrong tools (a sewing machine and computer, for example), the workers cannot build the house. If they have the wrong blueprint (for example, for a coffin or ship) the house cannot be built. When the specified requirements are lacking entropy will proceed unabated to the degree they are lacking.

Embryos take energy from food sources and use their cellular machinery, directed by genetic programming, to develop and become more complex. This complexity is specified by the genes and will not exceed the genetic programming. There is no analog between the development of an individual life form from pre-existing blueprints (genes) and the notion of the genetic blueprints themselves becoming more complex. The latter proposal does not meet the additional requirements specified above and thus constitutes a conflict with the Law of Entropy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mikerotch, Going to Bed

jackpine savage

02-14-2007, 09:50 PM

Mikerotch-post all you want but I am still going to come down there and steal your beer :D

amnestia

02-14-2007, 11:23 PM

I've never seen laws of entropy applied to organic organisms like you have used it here but it makes ill-sense to me, how increasing entropy affects organisms on the microscopic(cell work) and chemical spotaneity within the body I can understand beyond that it doesn't make much sense.

Entropy has to do with increasing disorder within a system caused by a balancing of energy(energy moves from an area where it's hot to an area where it's cold, never vice versa). Evolution utilizes the energy of the sun as its' driving force for life(the sun loses energy to its environment where the earth and its members harness this energy in order to perform work) . You say that Humans, animals, and all else can not surpass their genetic blueprint I say this is completely false. An easy example is bacteria, many billions of bacteria can reproduce and multiple in seconds from a single colony, simple mutations that occur during splitting or due to the environment can easily cause harmful or helpful transformations within the organism. Nucleotide insertions due to misplacing by DNA or RNA transcriptases are one possible cause for this and after many trillion duplications can't a few bacteria organisms here and there accumulate enough mutations to evolve beyond its' original blueprint? An ever extending genome for an organism can result in all kinds of possibilities can it not? Another example can be hybrids, some occur naturally within the environment due to cross pollination. Doesn't the joining of 2 plants create a totally new one? True that it's genetic makeup consists of 2 already existing blueprints but isn't this a totally NEW blueprint? I still don't see how the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies in this case, if there was enough entropy then all sorts of processes can occur spontaneously. But what does this have to do with shuffling genomes?

Bill McIntyre

02-14-2007, 11:28 PM

Thanks

amnestia

02-14-2007, 11:51 PM

I just looked it up and read this http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

I won't deny it completely as it does make sense in a way but the arguements are still relatively weak.
Yes increasing disorder in the universe occurs, yes we recieve energy from the sun to temporily slow this process down. I agree that once the available energy for work is gone then all life will dissipate but none of this directly conflicts with the theory of evolution on the molecular level it seems to play out quite well. Yeah a plant won't come alive again even if given all the previously sufficient needs but isn't this easily explained by degradation of the cells leaving it unable to perform further work? Does a theory of creationism that says a higher being sparked interactions between molecules to create life actually refute evolution? No it's the theory of creationism that fine unchangable and perfected blueprints were put forth to create earth and all its' belongings.

If you do believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a fundamental truth then http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

bikewrench

02-15-2007, 05:54 AM

The Law of Entropy – that is, disorder – is a dagger aimed at the heart of Darwinian fundamentalism. It has two applications, the entropy of the entire universe considered as a single system, and the entropy of individual, open systems. In considering the significance of entropy for the universe consider the following quote by eminent evolutionary biologist Sir Julian Huxley:

Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution – a single process of self-transformation. (Huxley)

Mikerotch, Going to Bed

BS! You're still drinking the kool-aide! There a dozens of problems with the creationist's (mis)use of physics to "prove" evolution is not possible. I'll just adress this one right now. Entropy does increase overall but there is NOTHING about the law that precludes small, local decreases in entropy, as long as the whole kit and caboodle (the Universe) is running down. As for the (mis) quote of Huxley, it is not the entire entire evolutionary history of Earth that has to be considered when thinking about entropy, it is the individual, short-term gathering of molecules within each single organism. In other words during the life of any organism it builds up a complex body that is a small, localized, TEMPORARY decrease in entropy, but as soon as it dies and decomposes guess what? It falls apart and entropy INCREASES. The reason that entropy can decrease in local spots (like in a living thing) is because energy is being added to that local system. Its not magic Mike, entropy can decrease if energy is added to the system. Do we have a constant supply of energy being added to Earth Mike?

stickitfishy

02-15-2007, 06:19 AM

Please show me one bit of proof supporting Creationism, just one speck please! You don't prove something by disproving something else, which you didn't at all!

Wayward Son

02-15-2007, 07:59 AM

Proving a negative tends to be extreemly difficult. prove you didn't beat your wife last night. prove that creation didn't happen. prove that life has not evolved. prove that something didn't happen before man even walked on this planet.

swathdiver

02-15-2007, 09:00 AM

But I do want my tax dollars to ensure that every kid learns math, reading, history, and other subjects necessary to keep us competitive.

They don't teach that in public school anymore Bill. Not in south Florida. It's Christians are bigots, how to put on condoms, moral relavancy, being gay, it's ok to experiment with the opposite sex, this is in elementary school mind you and now they want your 5th grade daughters to be vaccinated for HPV!

It's outrageous! I pulled my oldest and put her in private school. My youngest started out in private from the beginning and is light-years ahead of her neighborhood friends.

Who founded the NEA? A communist. What is communism's goal in the United States? To destroy us from within. Don't take my word for it, google and educate yourselves.

Bill McIntyre

02-15-2007, 09:57 AM

Somehow it seems inconsistent to believe that in 40 days and 40 nights of rain, a pair of every species of animal on earth could have been gathered and put on a wooden boat, and at the same time try to use physics to back up creationism.

Mikerotch

02-15-2007, 11:55 AM

The species were gathered prior to the rain, not during. Meanwhile, the account that I personally believe to be accurate, requires no violation of any physical law. Godless evolution, on the other hand, requires that random atoms assembled themselves with no outside "organizer" to form molecules that are so complex that words can not possibly describe. This, regardless of whatever extraneous thoughts are brought into the discussion, defies the 2nd law. Without a "blueprint" and additional energy, nothing can go from "disorder" to "order". Rooms don't clean themselves, walls don't paint themselves, drawers don't organize themselves, and DNA doesn't arrange itself into its sequence, regardless of how long you give it. In fairness, there are certainly events in the Bible that are not possible as well; however people of faith attribute these events to a supernatural God who is not bound by the physical laws he set in place. If evolution was, in fact, the means by which we came into being, it would have certainly required a "God" act as well to circumvent the natural laws. Bill, I care not to argue anymore, I'm quite certain that I am not articulate enough to convince you of anything that you are not open to, so allow me to leave you with one last thought. Next time you hold that adorable baby in your avatar, look into her eyes and ask yourself :
Is it really possible that this is the result of random molecular arrangement, and thus of no value at all, or perhaps did a Loving God create her for me to enjoy and perhaps to learn something about Him? I can never prove to you or anyone else that there is a God. If I could, it would require no faith, which, for some reason I can't explain, is important to Him. I can certainly give ample evidence there is a God, but you nor I can never know Him if we must first prove He exists. Have a great day, and let's go spearfishing.

Mikerotch, Moving On

chuam

02-15-2007, 11:57 AM

They don't teach that in public school anymore Bill. Not in south Florida. It's Christians are bigots, how to put on condoms, moral relavancy, being gay, it's ok to experiment with the opposite sex, this is in elementary school mind you and now they want your 5th grade daughters to be vaccinated for HPV!

It's outrageous! I pulled my oldest and put her in private school. My youngest started out in private from the beginning and is light-years ahead of her neighborhood friends.

Who founded the NEA? A communist. What is communism's goal in the United States? To destroy us from within. Don't take my word for it, google and educate yourselves.

Why on earth wouldn't you want your daughter vaccinated against the 4 strains of HPV that can cause cancer. You get your children vaccinated for all sorts of diseases so why not this one? At least 50% of the population will have HPV in their lifetimes with at least 80% of women having it by the time they are 50. Do you care so little about your childs health that you won't let her get vaccinated?

What, just because she's been vaccinated she's going to take this as a reason to go out and bang everyone including the gardener? Do you have that little faith in your parenting and your childs intelligence that you can't raise her to make the right decisions in life?

The whole argument that women shouldn't be vaccinated because it will make them more promiscuous is ridiculous. Did you know that kids who take abstinence vows have a higher rate of getting STD's than those who don't?

chuam

02-15-2007, 11:59 AM

Bill McIntyre

02-15-2007, 11:59 AM

Damn! I've been living with a teacher and member of the NEA all these years, and now I find that she is a Communist. What should I do to protect myself?

Mikerotch

02-15-2007, 12:07 PM

I can never prove to you or anyone else that there is a God. If I could, it would require no faith, which, for some reason I can't explain, is important to Him. I can certainly give ample evidence there is a God,

Providing evidence and proving something are not the same thing. The prosecutors at OJ's trial provided ample evidence, but apparently didn't prove anything.

Mikerotch, Officially Tired

P.S. Chaum, nice avatar, hadn't noticed the details before

Bill McIntyre

02-15-2007, 12:30 PM

The species were gathered prior to the rain, not during. Meanwhile, the account that I personally believe to be accurate, requires no violation of any physical law.

Do you have any idea how many species of animal exist on the earth? I can't give you a number, but I think its a whole bunch, and we are still discovering new ones. Without aircraft or ocean going ships, just how did Noah go all over the world to gather them? Even with modern aircraft and ships, how long would it take to visit every continent and island and gather every species? Or did they all find their own way to Noah? How did they cross oceans, continents, etc.? I don't know about physical law, but it sure violates physical possibility. I can't see how any intelligent man could believe that story if he is honest with himself.

If evolution was, in fact, the means by which we came into being, it would have certainly required a "God" act as well to circumvent the natural laws.

Now we are getting somewhere. I don't think evolution circumvents the natural law, but there certainly could be a God who created that natural law. Many people who believe in a God are perfectly happy to accept a God who could have created such a wonderful system in which organisms constantly evolve to adapt to their environments and succeed. Why not give her credit for that?

Primitive men had little knowledge of science, so they had to settle for simplistic explanations of God creating everything in 6 days, but we don't have to settle for that. We can imagine a God who, in her wisdom, created something infinitely better. Why stay stuck in the past?

I frankly don't know what the "uncaused cause" was, but if it was something like God, then hallelujah!

Next time you hold that adorable baby in your avatar, look into her eyes and ask yourself :
Is it really possible that this is the result of random molecular arrangement, and thus of no value at all, or perhaps did a Loving God create her for me to enjoy and perhaps to learn something about Him?

I'm perfectly willing to believe that she is the result of a wonderful process that was by no means random, and that certainly doesn't mean that she has no value.

Edit: I find it both insulting and sad that you think a person has no value unless there is a God.

spaghetti

02-15-2007, 12:50 PM

and from Bill's latest statement (evolution, primitive men/contemporary men et cetera), one step further: welfare is the evolution of charity, a very, very christian thing.
With all respect for Mike, I can't see how he might be showing a christian point of view of this thread, which he started by claiming tha education is not a right. In our modern society, a decent education is necessary to survive just like bread and water. As two thousand years ago Jesus said to "give water to the thirsty", I humbly presume that today He would say to give an education to the children of the poor families.
And this not only for their sole benefit, but for my own. I'd prefer to live near educated neighbours, who have everything they need for their living, and who share a common cultural background with me, rather than coping with wild and desperate neighbours.
PS- spearfishing doesn't suck in Europe. It just takes a bit of skill :D .

amnestia

02-15-2007, 01:06 PM

Spoteneity can always indefinitely occur with energy levels under G, "There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS — yes, predicts firmly — the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter. "

Doesn't make sense to use a physical law that applies mostly to molecular bonding in chemistry and energy distribution within the universe to revoke the existence of evolution in organisms.

amnestia

02-15-2007, 01:11 PM

Also a question, how did Noah fit a pair of every organism on this planet on a ship of the dimensions you gave and fit the supplies needed to keep them alive for 40 days and 40 nights? Isn't it also widely known and plainly said that stories of Genesis are nothing more than metaphors?

ps. what the hell did he do with all the feces that the animals released?

Also the underlying processes of evolution are indeed random, the outcome by the definition of evolution itself is not random at all.

Mikerotch

02-15-2007, 02:02 PM

mnguy

02-15-2007, 03:59 PM

"ps. what the hell did he do with all the feces that the animals released?"

He piled it all west of Nevada, it is the basis for what we now call California where all types of things grow and evolve.

Mikerotch, Done Now

Ouch, that was pretty low.

It'd be like saying that the inbred monkey pair was sent east of the rockies down to where the peaches grow to repopulate the area.

You get what you give, so lets keep it above the belt yeah?

Mikerotch

02-15-2007, 04:03 PM

Mnguy, sorry if that offended, it was truly meant with a smile. I love California, it makes me thankful for Georgia. ( that was sarcastic as well )

Mikerotch, Sarcastic Descendant of Transplanted Inbred Monkeys

Bill McIntyre

02-15-2007, 04:25 PM

Mikerotch, Sarcastic Descendant of Transplanted Inbred Monkeys

Evolutionary theory tells us that some lines just don't work out and eventually die out.

For instance, despite some tantalizing evidence to the contrary in the SE US, Neanderthal Man is generally thought to be extinct.

Wayward Son

02-16-2007, 09:56 AM

"In a world where government has its hand in almost everything, it requires a certain leap of imagination to see how things might work if it didn't." - Brian Doherty, author of "Radicals for Capitalism"

Many people can't make that leap or have great difficulty with it.

Mikerotch

02-16-2007, 10:57 AM

Well said. For some reason, once this thread veered from the out of control federal octopus and into the realm of education, I was never able to overcome the notion that government control is necessary, and anything else is "opposed" to education. Suggesting the idea that we utilize free market concepts to improve the quality and cost effectiveness of education is automatically linked with being "anti-education." Kind of like the link between being opposed to the Charlie Foxtrot in Iraq is "not supporting the troops." I must be quite the football bat because I'm an advocate of education via free market delivery systems, and love our troops a lot more than the "cause" in Iraq.

Mikerotch, Neanderthal, or Inbred Monkey Libertarian
Maybe a Neanderthal Monkey Libertarian
Or Maybe a Monkey Neanderthal Libertarian
Or maybe a Libertarian Neanderthal Monkey

chuam

02-16-2007, 01:11 PM

The main reason for governmental control over free market is to keep corporations from monopolizing their industry. The biggest problem with our free market is large corporations squash smaller companies which in turn kills the free market and competition. When these corporations get huge do you think they really care about the consumer or their employees? Companies are not out there looking out for our best interests and they would sell us down the river in a heartbeat if it increased their earnings. What makes you think that an education system run by a large corporation (which would inevitably happen) would have it's students in its best interests?

amnestia

02-16-2007, 01:47 PM

"This, regardless of whatever extraneous thoughts are brought into the discussion, defies the 2nd law. Without a "blueprint" and additional energy, nothing can go from "disorder" to "order"."

This is fundamentally false, the 2nd law is the basis of energy diffusion within the universe, this diffusing of energy is what ALLOWS work to be done between molecules and matter.

INCREASE IN ENTROPY MEANS INCREASE IN SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS!!!!!!!

Work can't be done without additional energy(or LOSS OF take water to ice for example) and the ever increase entropic nature of the universe PROVIDES this energy, you are confusing the 2nd law. Blueprints are not needed for the creation of many molecules, indeed the most complex molecules are usually created by organisms this does not rid of the fact that it CAN be made without organic aid(CHLOROPHYL IS ONE EXAMPLE). An incalcuable amount of molecules collide within the universe at all times, even as you breath the molecules of oxygen and co2 are reacting against the compression of your lungs and the molecules around you. If you've ever saturated boiled water with salt until it could no longer be saturated and cooled the water you would SEE organizing of molecules into crystallized form. Indeed initial energy is needed in order to break the bonds but that is the very nature of its enthalpy.

You are surely confusing the nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with some half-assed arguement created to circumvent evolution(most likely by religious sorts of course).

amnestia

02-16-2007, 01:52 PM

Mikerotch

02-16-2007, 01:58 PM

That's quite a leap, Chaum, but I tend to give that some merit. Many large corporations have a tendency to become unresponsive to their customer base, sometimes out of bureaucratic bumbling, but more often when they are granted monopolistic or semi-monopolistic status by regulatory action (intended or not). In a true free market, there are always sprouting, innovative entrepreneurs willing to meet the unmet needs and wants of the customer. Most businesses tend to grow to a point and often crumble under their own weight at some point. That's when the newer, hungrier entities step in and do the job. Another point to ponder, and what I call the ultimate evidence that true free markets are the way to go is found in your opening statement. The implication is that monopolies are detrimental to consumers, for without the freedom to go to another supplier, the current provider has no incentive to improve quality or minimize price. I concur completely, for that is economic fact. I will also go one further step. Public education as we currently have it is, in effect, a monopoly. Granted, in some markets, pressure from private schools compels public schools to do better, and likewise, in some markets high quality public schools force private schools to do a better job. Either way, all schools who face competition are compelled to be responsive to their customers and by default produce a better product.
Someone earlier made a comment about publicly funded universities doing a top notch job and used that as a plus for public administration of education. After thinking about that, and the fact that it is true to a large degree, I thought about why it is true. Meaning, there are many public universities that are, for all intents and purposes, just as good as the private ones. Granted there are many apple and orange issues when compared to lower level education, but there is one element alive and well in the university setting that is absent from high school and elementary : competition. As my daughter prepares to make a decision about where to go, she has institutions from all over sending her information about their programs and selling her on why she should choose them. They are constantly trying to evaluate their "product" and how it compares to what young people are looking for. Meanwhile, for those students who want to go to the "prestigious" schools, there is fierce competition to see who can produce the best grades and resumes, for hope of winning a spot. My contention, from the beginning was simply that this is the best "vehicle" to deliver education to the masses. The same thing that makes UPS and Fed-Ex more responsive than the Post Office will provide a similar shot for education, if given a chance.

Mikerotch, Retired again

bikewrench

02-16-2007, 03:49 PM

One of the biggest fallacies of the bible deals with the fossil record.

Before man's fall to sin there was no death or disease upon this earth correct?(Genesis/New Testament blatantly says this)

Yet the fossil record shows before man came to be or anything even remotely resembling man came to be, there was death and disease.

BTW I see nothing wrong with the public school system, i'm a Senior at my local highschool and believe it's not the systems fault for lack of knowledge in today's youth. It's the youth themselves, those who want to learn WILL learn, there is always ample opportunity to do so.

PS. I do believe in a higher power that sparked life in the universe however not even remotely close to what the bible states. If indeed there was a God, he is anything but "all good". Please read "The Moral Arguments for Deity" by Bertrand Russell a late 19th-20th century philosopher. The First-Cause Argument might be interesting to you also.
Very well said and good for you (and presumably your parents) for taking your education seriously. It is crystal clear to anyone who takes the time and effort to actually look, that the bulk of the problems with education are the family and social environments that many kids come from. Kids start kindergarden and have never seen a book. Kids start kindergarden who have never been read to. Kids start kindergarden who have never seen their parent(s) solve a conflict reasonably. Kids go to school malnurished. Kids go to school dirty. There are kids in schools whose moms were shit-faced drunk for most of their pregnancy. Kids play stupid, violent video games instead of learning to just play. Kids listen to violent, pornographic "pop" music and think those songs reflect real life. Do I need to go on? Kids like this fill our schools and for a national per student average of $9000 we have to educate them. The idea that privatizing all education will result in a better product is misguided to say the least.

Mikerotch

02-16-2007, 04:46 PM

Amnestia On the subject of the fossil record :
For the record, there are numerous sites around the globe that have dinosaur prints and human prints in the same strata of rock. This is one of many problems with the time line for evolution. Unless 100 % of the prints are proven to be frauds, the multi hundred million year time frame between the 2 species closes rather quickly. ( like completely) Based on theoretical time periods for species to transition from one to another, the fossil record should include far more records of "transition" species than current species, which is not the case at all. Museums are filled with many species, both current and extinct, but most all of the "transition" species are normally located in writings described by evolutionary proponents, outside the actual displays. For more points to ponder, as you are obviously quite bright, practice your physics with regard to the earth's changing orbit and try to get a model whereby it can orbit for 4 billion years. Calculate cosmic dust deposits on the lunar surface and explain (as no "old" earth advocate has yet), why the dust isn't many meters deep. Finally, in your search for truth, if that's what it is, check the credentials of numerous "young" earth creationists, then objectively consider some of their points. Fear of truth is no way to find it. If your current views are correct, so be it. For what it's worth, I was once a High School guy myself, blessed with a gift for mathematics. I also believed I was the result of millions of years of evolution. I since have come to believe otherwise as I closely examined facts and theories. I hope you find the truth, regardless of what that may be. As an old saying goes, it shall set you free. Meanwhile, I will consider anything you or anybody else says, but I shall declare myself finished with "arguing."

Mikerotch, In need of a spearfishing trip