Low IQ's and Conservative Values Linked

[Catatonic]

Sure, MSNBC and their cast of characters are biased in the other direction. But at least they have the journalistic integrity to report facts instead of fiction.

That belief or observation says so much about you.

 

[over9five]

That belief or observation says so much about you.

He was being sarcastic.......right?

 

[Catatonic]

Sounds like the only difference between Hamilton and today's "ruling class" is that Hamilton was honest about his ambitions and disdain for the common folk.

I assume you include Obama and Romney ... I feel the same towards each, whether it be true or not, that they feel they are the elite and will make decisions they feel is best for American citizens.
I don't think either will do that ... probably not anyone running for President except maybe Ron Paul.

 

[Catatonic]

He was being sarcastic.......right?

No but I think you are! LOL

 

[MrFedEx]

Kudos - very good article that I can find little to argue about.

I think David Frum set the tone well with his first sentence:
This seems to me a question approximately as meaningful as asking whether the Founders would have preferred Macs or PCs: it exports back into the past an entirely alien mental category.

I think perhaps the Founding fathers would see many of their strong beliefs not present in in any of the current American political parties and would not like any of them.

I still continue to believe that they would see more of their ideas and beliefs reflected in the general beliefs of the Libertarian party than they would in the Republican or the Democratic parties.

I also think the main thing our Founding Fathers would feel if they were plunked down into America today would be "out of place" which is consistent with David's point in this article.

Don't you think anyone from the 18th century would feel "out of place" today? Given the complexities of life in the 21st century, perhaps the Founding Fathers would have a much different take on what needed to be done. I think it's a given that they would place a higher value on self-reponsibility because self-reliance was an inherent part of life at that point in history. Many of the government institutions that Libertarians hate so much evolved out of necessity as our population grew and our society evolved.

Sorry, but in a huge country that is the world's super power, and made up of multiple constituencies with widely varying ideals and goals, a large federal government is simply a necessity.

 

[804brown]

Kudos - very good article that I can find little to argue about.

I think David Frum set the tone well with his first sentence:
This seems to me a question approximately as meaningful as asking whether the Founders would have preferred Macs or PCs: it exports back into the past an entirely alien mental category.

I think perhaps the Founding fathers would see many of their strong beliefs not present in in any of the current American political parties and would not like any of them.

I still continue to believe that they would see more of their ideas and beliefs reflected in the general beliefs of the Libertarian party than they would in the Republican or the Democratic parties.

I also think the main thing our Founding Fathers would feel if they were plunked down into America today would be "out of place" which is consistent with David's point in this article.

The whole world has changed. But I still dont think they were small government types. They were so afraid of rebellions such as Shay's Rebellion that they needed a strong central government so they threw out the articles of confederation and drew up the constitution to 'repress domestic faction and insurrection". The Riot Act. The Sedition Laws,etc.

 

[Catatonic]

The whole world has changed. But I still dont think they were small government types. They were so afraid of rebellions such as Shay's Rebellion that they needed a strong central government so they threw out the articles of confederation and drew up the constitution to 'repress domestic faction and insurrection". The Riot Act. The Sedition Laws,etc.

That was primarily the doing of Hamilton and backing by Jay and Adams.
I think that Jefferson and Washington thought the states own militia could handle these - probably not though because the States were so in debt from the Revolutionary War.

The real problem was the funding of the National government and the compromise was that the National government would assume all the individual states debt but would have the authority to tax and raise revenues to fund the efforts of the National government.

And so we are here today.

 

[Catatonic]

Don't you think anyone from the 18th century would feel "out of place" today? Given the complexities of life in the 21st century, perhaps the Founding Fathers would have a much different take on what needed to be done. I think it's a given that they would place a higher value on self-reponsibility because self-reliance was an inherent part of life at that point in history. Many of the government institutions that Libertarians hate so much evolved out of necessity as our population grew and our society evolved.

Sorry, but in a huge country that is the world's super power, and made up of multiple constituencies with widely varying ideals and goals, a large federal government is simply a necessity.

I must point out that if the National Government was 1/10th it's current size, it would still be a large National government (sorry, I can't bring myself to type Federal).

That's undoubtedly too drastic but is 50%? ... that is the 100 Trillion dollar question.

 

[curiousbrain]

I must point out that if the National Government was 1/10th it's current size, it would still be a large National government (sorry, I can't bring myself to type Federal).

That's undoubtedly too drastic but is 50%? ... that is the 100 Trillion dollar question.

I think it is worth considering what is and/or what is not cut; cutting the Department of Education by 50% would probably be a hard sell, simply because the "Average American" believes that department offers a tangible benefit to their children (if that is or is not the case is irrelevant). In the same vein, good luck cutting the Department of Defense by any amount because of the nature of defense contractors to supply jobs for the constituencies of many political figures.

Maybe the Department of Energy? Except that they handle the US's nuclear weapons stockpile; it would be a tough sell indeed to say that we should cut the budget for the department responsible for the nuclear weapons stockpile.

I guess my point is that, yes, the government is bloated beyond belief; but it has become the business of government to perpetuate the perception of its own usefulness. And, given the collusion between corporate money and the political figures in this country, the system is broken and, in all likelihood, will never be fixed.

 

[804brown]

. And, given the collusion between corporate money and the political figures in this country, the system is broken and, in all likelihood, will never be fixed.

"...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government."

 

[Catatonic]

I think it is worth considering what is and/or what is not cut; cutting the Department of Education by 50% would probably be a hard sell, simply because the "Average American" believes that department offers a tangible benefit to their children (if that is or is not the case is irrelevant). In the same vein, good luck cutting the Department of Defense by any amount because of the nature of defense contractors to supply jobs for the constituencies of many political figures.

Maybe the Department of Energy? Except that they handle the US's nuclear weapons stockpile; it would be a tough sell indeed to say that we should cut the budget for the department responsible for the nuclear weapons stockpile.

I guess my point is that, yes, the government is bloated beyond belief; but it has become the business of government to perpetuate the perception of its own usefulness. And, given the collusion between corporate money and the political figures in this country, the system is broken and, in all likelihood, will never be fixed.

I feel your pain but I refuse to accept the inevitability of your astute observation.

The Dept of Defense could be cut by 45% and still maintain it's effectiveness.

Dept that could be cut or at least combined are:
Education - Totally cut it out - the problems we have in schools today are the result of the controls and influence the National government has over State and Local schools.
Agriculture - Cut out all subsidies
Energy - WTF - Cut
Housing and Urban Development - let states do what they want

There is much info on the web if you want to look at it and it can't be done in one fell swoop but over 10 years, it can be done.

But the 800 pound Gorilla is the Entitlement programs of Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicare. Means testing, raising co-pays and deductions, etc are just a few "hard" measures that must be taken.

 

[Catatonic]

"...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government."

Need some Rage Against the Machine to make an impact.

Wake up - Rage Against The Machine - YouTube

 

[curiousbrain]

I feel your pain but I refuse to accept the inevitability of your astute observation.

The Dept of Defense could be cut by 45% and still maintain it's effectiveness.

Dept that could be cut or at least combined are:
Education - Totally cut it out - the problems we have in schools today are the result of the controls and influence the National government has over State and Local schools.
Agriculture - Cut out all subsidies
Energy - WTF - Cut
Housing and Urban Development - let states do what they want

There is much info on the web if you want to look at it and it can't be done in one fell swoop but over 10 years, it can be done.

But the 800 pound Gorilla is the Entitlement programs of Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicare. Means testing, raising co-pays and deductions, etc are just a few "hard" measures that must be taken.

You know the subjective nature of information on the web, as I do, and I think we can both agree that any position can be supported by "facts" of one nature or another.

To one of your points, remove the Department of Education? I think the desire of various states/municipalities to institute Creationism (and the associated craziness) illustrates the danger of this. Now, I am not saying that there should be an extreme control over what is or what is not taught in schools, but I do think there (in the same sense as UL requirements for electrical work) needs to be a minimum standard - evolution being one of them. Don't want to teach evolution? Then you get no money from "the man" and you have to fund it via outside efforts - I'm sure Pat Robertson has a 1-800 number.

Agriculture - Sure, the subsidies make little sense; at least, that is to say, they make little sense as they have been explained to me. If someone or some group can offer a compelling explanation of why they need to exist, I am all ears.

Energy. Really? "WTF CUT?" You are a smart guy, I like to think that I am a smart guy, and I am sure there are many smart guys reading these posts. To propose blanket cuts is .... irresponsible? What about the implications of nuclear power plants in this country? To haphazardly cut the DOE will, undoubtedly, drastically effect facilities which could endanger tens of thousands of people. Not to mention ruin millions of dollars in investment.

As to the Housing/Urban development ... I plead the fifth. I have tended to avoid anything on this topic since 2008 when, suddenly, everyone was an "expert". I'm not saying that you are one of "them", I am rather saying that I recuse myself out of my own ignorance, not yours.

I agree, though, that the entitlement programs are the sacred cow (with Defense, mind you) that need to be put on the chopping block.

 

[MrFedEx]

That belief or observation says so much about you.

The bias is so much less on the Left. Fox has zero credibility.

 

[Catatonic]

To one of your points, remove the Department of Education? I think the desire of various states/municipalities to institute Creationism (and the associated craziness) illustrates the danger of this. Now, I am not saying that there should be an extreme control over what is or what is not taught in schools, but I do think there (in the same sense as UL requirements for electrical work) needs to be a minimum standard - evolution being one of them. Don't want to teach evolution? Then you get no money from "the man" and you have to fund it via outside efforts - I'm sure Pat Robertson has a 1-800 number.

Energy. Really? "WTF CUT?" You are a smart guy, I like to think that I am a smart guy, and I am sure there are many smart guys reading these posts. To propose blanket cuts is .... irresponsible? What about the implications of nuclear power plants in this country? To haphazardly cut the DOE will, undoubtedly, drastically effect facilities which could endanger tens of thousands of people. Not to mention ruin millions of dollars in investment.

The purpose of the education is to present to the students a variety of subjects whose knowledge will help them become active contributors to society. When I went to school in the rural deep South which was so much more conservative than anything you are exposed to today. We were taught evolution but church teachings were discussed too. People are going to believe what they want to believe and I have not heard anyone asking that evolution not be taught and replace it with Creationism.
I was taught Pluto was a planet and now it is not.
I believe that anyone that believes in Creationism does so at a faith level and if that is taught, the students will ignore the irrationality of it. Much as we do with the beliefs we are taught at work.
You are aware that Creationism was and is taught to many people over the last 50 years and that these people function and contribute to Society? Anybody that believe half the stuff they are taught in government schools 50 years ago or today are fools anyway so it doesn't really matter what you teach them.
BTW - I do not believe in Creationism in any form - it is simply people trying to reconcile the "infallibility of the written word of the Bible" against the objective analysis of the observed world.

I don't know your age but by the time one is 30 or so, they have replaced all the garbage they learned in school with real life observations - theory only goes so far. That is, unless they are involved in the school system. Teachers teach and do'ers do.

The Dept of Energy was formed in 1977 and most nuclear power plants were built by then. Revert back to the means by which the US managed nuclear materials prior to the formation of the Department of Energy. The problem with forming National Departments is that the things they regulate/control become increasingly politicized and bureaucratic which means wasteful spending.

 

[Catatonic]

The bias is so much less on the Left. Fox has zero credibility.

You are a funny person! If nothing else I LMAO at your posts.

I think you and 804brown are of similar persuasions. Try looking at his posts versus yours sometimes.
There is a world of difference ... bless your heart.

 

[curiousbrain]

The purpose of the education is to present to the students a variety of subjects whose knowledge will help them become active contributors to society. When I went to school in the rural deep South which was so much more conservative than anything you are exposed to today. We were taught evolution but church teachings were discussed too. People are going to believe what they want to believe and I have not heard anyone asking that evolution not be taught and replace it with Creationism.
I was taught Pluto was a planet and now it is not.
I believe that anyone that believes in Creationism does so at a faith level and if that is taught, the students will ignore the irrationality of it. Much as we do with the beliefs we are taught at work.
You are aware that Creationism was and is taught to many people over the last 50 years and that these people function and contribute to Society? Anybody that believe half the stuff they are taught in government schools 50 years ago or today are fools anyway so it doesn't really matter what you teach them.
BTW - I do not believe in Creationism in any form - it is simply people trying to reconcile the "infallibility of the written word of the Bible" against the objective analysis of the observed world.

I don't know your age but by the time one is 30 or so, they have replaced all the garbage they learned in school with real life observations - theory only goes so far. That is, unless they are involved in the school system. Teachers teach and do'ers do.

The Dept of Energy was formed in 1977 and most nuclear power plants were built by then. Revert back to the means by which the US managed nuclear materials prior to the formation of the Department of Energy. The problem with forming National Departments is that the things they regulate/control become increasingly politicized and bureaucratic which means wasteful spending.

I disagree. I don't feel the need to really elaborate, because it feels apparent that we won't agree on the "sticking" points.

That being said, I am mulling over what you said, which may influence my future beliefs.

 

[wkmac]

You know the subjective nature of information on the web, as I do, and I think we can both agree that any position can be supported by "facts" of one nature or another.

Good point about the subjective nature of websites on the internet. Case in point.

DOE

Dept. of Education

DOD



Be careful as that argument can work against you too!

As for education, since the dept. of education took direction of American schools in the late 1970's, at the time a high school diploma was considered enough. At UPS, someone with only a high school diploma could easily become a manager and even a division manager. Today this is no longer the case as the equivalent level of education now is a 4 year college degree and a high school diploma is about an 8th grade level. After 30 plus years of federal direction of education, the level of education has gotten worse and will likely only get worse from such topdown control.

Of course this is just more subjective internet stuff to be ignored but more and more people especially parents are coming to see what the system really is.

Also, you should go to the TED website and view the numerous videos of lectures on education and it becomes very obvious that the US education model is outdated and totally dehumanizing.

 

[curiousbrain]

Good point about the subjective nature of websites on the internet. Case in point.

DOE

Dept. of Education

DOD



Be careful as that argument can work against you too!

As for education, since the dept. of education took direction of American schools in the late 1970's, at the time a high school diploma was considered enough. At UPS, someone with only a high school diploma could easily become a manager and even a division manager. Today this is no longer the case as the equivalent level of education now is a 4 year college degree and a high school diploma is about an 8th grade level. After 30 plus years of federal direction of education, the level of education has gotten worse and will likely only get worse from such topdown control.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but I think it sufficient to point out that it is, in fact, a good thing that a Division Manager at UPS requires a 4 year degree or more - despite what many of us, myself included, think about these DM's, the position should require a high level of education and/or experience. I don't see the point you are making, although that could be because I was educated under the system of federal control that you are so clearly suspect of.

Of course this is just more subjective internet stuff to be ignored but more and more people especially parents are coming to see what the system really is.

Also, you should go to the TED website and view the numerous videos of lectures on education and it becomes very obvious that the US education model is outdated and totally dehumanizing.

I will watch the previous videos in due time, but I do feel compelled to mention that as a person who has been, and is continuing to be educated under this nasty, dirty federal system, many of my professors encourage me to watch TED, FORA.tv, Google TechTalks, MIT OpenCourseware, and many other free resources. It obviously may not jive with the concept of "Uncle Sam indoctrinating the youth", but maybe the reality is that us young, college educated folk have more of an idea what is really going on than some might think.

 

[Catatonic]

I disagree. I don't feel the need to really elaborate, because it feels apparent that we won't agree on the "sticking" points.

That being said, I am mulling over what you said, which may influence my future beliefs.

I'm sure of what I have seen you posting here that you will learn to think for yourself and develop your beliefs based upon your observations of the world.

As I read back through my post I noticed something that did not come across the way I meant.

The word was "garbage" ... I think maybe "junk" is maybe a better word but I am still not satisfied because that is not clear.

What I mean is that you are taught a large and broad knowledge base in grades 1 - 12 and college.
Most of which has no direct bearing on your life once you get out of school. That stuff is junk that you throwaway.

One decides which stuff to throwaway based on their personal experiences and what they observe in the real world.

Schools don't know what each person will be doing so it is broad based knowledge. Almost all become specialist once they get out in the real world. Even at UPS, the generalized training and exposure to all facets of the business is not really done any more.